Taxation comes before democracy; Productivity comes before taxation
ltl...@mindspring.com
between the citizens and their government. In ancient Greek, intercity
and external warfares were constant. The citizens needed the government
for leadership and the government needed the citizens as soldiers. In
modern day countries, warfare is relatively infrequent. In additon,
there are no more "Indians" to terminate and no more native land to
occupy. The interdependence between the citizens and the government is
one of economics.
1. No democracy without taxation
Without tax revenues, there will be no government, democracy or
otherwise.
With tax revenues barely pay for internal and external securities, a
government can do little no matter how willing it wants to fulfill the
wishes of the citizens.
If the citizens are productive and the government has a large stake in
the citizens' productivity, for example, 57% of Belgium's labor costs
go to the government according to OECD data, the government will be
careful not to upset the citizens. Government officials will also pay
attention to the citizens' demand as they are their loyal customers.
From the citizens' point of view, the knowledge that they are
sacrificing for government programs will make them pay more attention
on governmental activities and more vociferous. The government will
naturally be democratic.
No taxation without representation is a war cry for the revolutionists.
No representation without taxation is the modern day reality.
2. No taxation without productive citizens
In countries like Saudi Arabia where the government can depend on
revenues derived from oil or other natural resources for survival, they
will be difficult to be democratic. Basically, these governments do not
need citizens if they security can be somewhat guranteed.
Privatization will be a way to transfer productivity to subjects to
make them productive and tax paying citizens.
For resources poor countries like PRC, the government have to find some
other way to boost citizen productivity.
In short, citizen productivity leads to meaningful taxation, taxation
leads to democracy. These are the foundations of democracy.
The maintainance of democracy is a different story. Basically, it
requires opposition parties and free press.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ltl...@mindspring.com
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <8nc9gm$k1a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net> wrote:
> > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > No taxation without representation is a war cry for the
> > > revolutionists. No representation without taxation is the modern
> > > day reality.
> >
> > they be taxed more before expecting democracy.
>
> Not quite that way.
>
> What is democracy? Many answers.
> But the responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its
> citizens should be a key characteristics of democracy.
>
> Suppose a dictator of a not resource rich country has a policy that
the
> citizens do not like. The citizens propose another policy that will
> make themselves more productive and promise to pay 80% of marginal
> income to the government.
>
> Do you think the dictator will cooporate? I do.
> In addition, I think he will quickly eliminate unnecessary polices and
> soldiers to maximize personal wealth.
>
> --------
> Democratic government may be priceless. It is not costless.
> What kind of democracy can one country has if all citizens and
> corporations have the freedom not to pay any tax?
alber...@my-deja.com
> Democracy is the results of explicit recognition of the
> interdependence between the citizens and their government. In ancient
> Greek, intercity and external warfares were constant. The citizens
> needed the government for leadership and the government needed the
> citizens as soldiers. In modern day countries, warfare is relatively
> infrequent. In additon, there are no more "Indians" to terminate and
> no more native land to occupy. The interdependence between the
> citizens and the government is one of economics.
These are rather enigmatic periphrases ....
Democracy is a not so tacit recognition of the sanctity of the
individual and his natural rights. It is a political system wherein
the citizens relate to each other as peers, and that the government
is a monitored, politically neutral provider of essential services.
It is not the government's role in a democratic society to lead, but
rather to follow the direction of the citizens or get out of their
way ....
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Solana Ranch/Bonsall, California, USA.
ltl...@mindspring.com
alber...@my-deja.com wrote:
> ltlee:
>
> > Democracy is the results of explicit recognition of the
> > interdependence between the citizens and their government. In
ancient
> > Greek, intercity and external warfares were constant. The citizens
> > needed the government for leadership and the government needed the
> > citizens as soldiers. In modern day countries, warfare is relatively
> > infrequent. In additon, there are no more "Indians" to terminate and
> > no more native land to occupy. The interdependence between the
> > citizens and the government is one of economics.
>
> These are rather enigmatic periphrases ....
Ancient Greek had involved in frequent warfares against its neighboring
cities. For example, during the period of 479 to 431, Athens was at war
virtually every year. During the almost 90+ years between the Persian
Wars and the triumph of Philip in 338 BC, Athens fought on the average
of two out of three years and never enjoyed a period of peace for ten
consecutive years. Fighting at such high freqency meant the rulers were
in constant need of soldiers and the citizens were under constant
threat of being turned into slaves. The ruling class and the citizens
obviously needed each other.
During the period of colonism, citizens and thier imperial governments
were also in a compact to occupy the land and took the wealth of what
previously belong to the native dwellers. The government would provide
the soldiers and the citizens would take physical control of the land
and exploit the various natural resources.
Currently, no countries fought like the ancient Greeks and there is no
more "free" land to claim, the relation between the government and the
citizens is largely in the form of taxes for government services.
>
> Democracy is a not so tacit recognition of the sanctity of the
> individual and his natural rights. It is a political system wherein
> the citizens relate to each other as peers, and that the government
> is a monitored, politically neutral provider of essential services.
>
> It is not the government's role in a democratic society to lead, but
> rather to follow the direction of the citizens or get out of their
> way ....
The above is the formula for a reactive government.
To have a proactive government, it have to lead. To worry before all
under heaven have worried, so to speak.
alber...@my-deja.com
> It is not the government's role in a democratic society to lead, but
> rather to follow the direction of the citizens or get out of their
> way ....
ltlee:
> The above is the formula for a reactive government.
> To have a proactive government, it have to lead. To worry before all
> under heaven have worried, so to speak.
My worries are mine and mine only. Thank you very much!
Your worries are yours and yours only. Thank havens!
There is nothing "reactive" about a government who tries its utmost to
stay out of the way of the people. There is nothing "pro-active" about
a government who pretends to know more than the people and impose its
own will upon the clients that it is supposed to served.
It is not unlike putting the cart before the horse ....
ltl...@mindspring.com
alber...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > It is not the government's role in a democratic society to lead, but
> > rather to follow the direction of the citizens or get out of their
> > way ....
>
> ltlee:
>
> > The above is the formula for a reactive government.
> > To have a proactive government, it have to lead. To worry before all
> > under heaven have worried, so to speak.
>
> My worries are mine and mine only. Thank you very much!
> Your worries are yours and yours only. Thank havens!
No one is saying everyone can make good government officials.
> There is nothing "reactive" about a government who tries its utmost to
> stay out of the way of the people. There is nothing "pro-active" about
> a government who pretends to know more than the people and impose its
> own will upon the clients that it is supposed to served.
Do not quite understand your point.
Every single government regulation is proactive in some aspects. Take
the speed limit for example. I have no doubt millions of drivers,
including myself, will testify that one can drive safely above the
speed limit. Should the government then let the drivers drive at
whatever speed they feel safe? The same goes for the seat belt law.
Every modern and large country naturally has many central and local
laws and regulations. Some are not as good as the other. One can always
pick out some of them and criticize them as "a government who pretends
to know more than the people and impose its own will upon the clients
that it is supposed to served." I, however, don't think a catagorical
dennial of the government's role in being proactive is realistic.
BTW, what do you think if citizens and companies can have the freedom
to pay as much or as less tax as they desire?
Greg Moriarty
> Every single government regulation is proactive in some aspects. Take
> the speed limit for example. I have no doubt millions of drivers,
> including myself, will testify that one can drive safely above the
> speed limit. Should the government then let the drivers drive at
> whatever speed they feel safe?
Duh. The speed limit in the United States was set by the people of the
United States (through their representatives). It was NOT set by some
autocrat who thought he knew better.
Once the speed limit on interstates was 55 mph. Then enough citizens
thought that this was too slow and asked their representatives to change
it. It was accordingly changed to 65 mph.
> BTW, what do you think if citizens and companies can have the freedom
> to pay as much or as less tax as they desire?
As individuals in a democratic society, they do NOT have the freedom. It
is the majority that determines the taxation level. This is no different
than any other law in a democratic society set by vote.
ltlee thinks a democratic society means everyone sets their own speed
limit and taxation level.
Tom Goodman
wrote:
>speed limit in the United States was set by the people of the
>United States (through their representatives). It was NOT set by some
>autocrat who thought he knew better.
Speed limit is set by Motor Vehicle Transportation branch; it's not
set by the majority nor even their "representatives",
When was the last time all the American people given the right or
opportunity to vote for speed limit ? Never. American people don't
even get the right or chance to vote for stop US nuclear weapon
program,let alone driving speed limit !!
USAmeriKKKa is run by term-dicatorship, not democracy.
Jim Walsh
<Comment...@Headquarter.CCI> wrote:
>When was the last time all the American people given the right or
>opportunity to vote for speed limit ?
1. Every time Americans vote for their state or federal legislators,
they are voting on the speed limit, albeit only indirectly.
2. I have long supported amending the constitution to allow
"referendum, initiative and recall" at the federal level. In other
words, IMHO, American voters should have the right to vote on issues
as well as on representatives at the federal level, as they already
can in most states. [Hint: Tom, if you don't know what "referendum,
initiative and recall" are, please do some research before you
comment.]
3. When was the last time the citizens of the PRC voted on anything?
[Hint: Except for villagers voting for their chief, never. BTW, TG has
sometimes claimed that PRC citizens vote, even though the CCP says
that they don't. This is as close as TG has ever gotten to criticizing
the CCP.]
4. It is hypocritical to argue that voting is bad (as you have done
many times) and then argue that America is bad because it doesn't have
voting.
5. When are you going to learn that there isn't any space between the
a word and the following punctuation?
Right How are you?
Wrong How are you ?
Right I have a book, a pencil and an eraser.
Wrong I have a book , a pencil and an eraser .
Love, Jim
"These young men and women are only a small number of the
victims of June 4 that I know of. Relatives of some victims, fearful
of official pressure, are unwilling to reveal publicly the names
and circumstances of the deaths of their loved ones, ....The
government has adopted a policy of forbidding discussion and
making people forget June 4." Ding Zilin, The China Reader,
Pages 210-211.
Clifford
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 04:51:06 GMT, Tom Goodman
><Comment...@Headquarter.CCI> wrote:
>
>>When was the last time all the American people given the right or
>>opportunity to vote for speed limit ?
>
>1. Every time Americans vote for their state or federal legislators,
>they are voting on the speed limit, albeit only indirectly.
>
1) Jim ass, you farting your ass off. Your Aemrica is an illegal
entity top begin with. Please give the lands back to the native
Indians.
>2. I have long supported amending the constitution to allow
>"referendum, initiative and recall" at the federal level. In other
>words, IMHO, American voters should have the right to vote on issues
>as well as on representatives at the federal level, as they already
>can in most states. [Hint: Tom, if you don't know what "referendum,
>initiative and recall" are, please do some research before you
>comment.]
>
2)Your country is illegal to begin with. Show us your work visa, Jim
ass.
>3. When was the last time the citizens of the PRC voted on anything?
>[Hint: Except for villagers voting for their chief, never. BTW, TG has
>sometimes claimed that PRC citizens vote, even though the CCP says
>that they don't. This is as close as TG has ever gotten to criticizing
>the CCP.]
>
3)Your country is illegal to begin with. There is no need vote. Why?
Did the natives Indians vote for you invaders?
>4. It is hypocritical to argue that voting is bad (as you have done
>many times) and then argue that America is bad because it doesn't have
>voting.
>
4)Your country is illegal to begin with. Show us your work visa, Jim
ass.
>5. When are you going to learn that there isn't any space between the
>a word and the following punctuation?
>
> Right How are you?
> Wrong How are you ?
> Right I have a book, a pencil and an eraser.
> Wrong I have a book , a pencil and an eraser .
>
>
5)Go fuck off Jim ass. Stop giving your stupid English grammar
lessons. Until you show us you teaching certificate, please shut up.
ltl...@mindspring.com
Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net> wrote:
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > Every single government regulation is proactive in some aspects.
Take
> > the speed limit for example. I have no doubt millions of drivers,
> > including myself, will testify that one can drive safely above the
> > speed limit. Should the government then let the drivers drive at
> > whatever speed they feel safe?
>
> Duh. The speed limit in the United States was set by the people of the
> United States (through their representatives). It was NOT set by some
> autocrat who thought he knew better.
>
> Once the speed limit on interstates was 55 mph. Then enough citizens
> thought that this was too slow and asked their representatives to
change
> it. It was accordingly changed to 65 mph.
I had read more than once that the interstate highway can be traveled
safely at 90 mph by design. The speed limit was 75 mph before the oil
shock. It was lowered to 55 mph, an imposed measure to conserve
gasoline. The Highway department liked the lowered highway causalty
number at lower speed limit and persuaded the law makers not to raise
it after the oil crisis. An proactive/preventive measure which had
saved many lives.
Citizens, especially travelling salesmen, always complaint about the
low speed limit. But their effort was in vain until improved technology
such as anti-lock brake and air bag and more sturdy and well built cars
become a reality.
>
> > BTW, what do you think if citizens and companies can have the
freedom
> > to pay as much or as less tax as they desire?
>
> As individuals in a democratic society, they do NOT have the freedom.
It
> is the majority that determines the taxation level. This is no
different
> than any other law in a democratic society set by vote.
>
> ltlee thinks a democratic society means everyone sets their own speed
> limit and taxation level.
Not at all.
Want to know what I think? You can read from the title of this thread
which I initiated: Taxation comes before democracy.
I have no quarrel with the speed limit. A lot of American citizens,
however, considered the requirement to buckle up, to wear helmet while
driving a motorcycle, and etc as intrusions to personal freedoms.
T. Walk
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <8nfnpi$j8q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net> wrote:
> > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > Every single government regulation is proactive in some aspects.
> Take
> > > the speed limit for example. I have no doubt millions of drivers,
> > > including myself, will testify that one can drive safely above the
> > > speed limit. Should the government then let the drivers drive at
> > > whatever speed they feel safe?
> >
> > Duh. The speed limit in the United States was set by the people of the
> > United States (through their representatives). It was NOT set by some
> > autocrat who thought he knew better.
> >
> > Once the speed limit on interstates was 55 mph. Then enough citizens
> > thought that this was too slow and asked their representatives to
> change
> > it. It was accordingly changed to 65 mph.
>
> I had read more than once that the interstate highway can be traveled
> safely at 90 mph by design. The speed limit was 75 mph before the oil
> shock. It was lowered to 55 mph, an imposed measure to conserve
> gasoline. The Highway department liked the lowered highway causalty
> number at lower speed limit and persuaded the law makers not to raise
> it after the oil crisis. An proactive/preventive measure which had
> saved many lives.
>
> Citizens, especially travelling salesmen, always complaint about the
> low speed limit. But their effort was in vain until improved technology
> such as anti-lock brake and air bag and more sturdy and well built cars
> become a reality.
Actually, the reason that the speed limits were recently increased is
because the federal government shut down due to some political battle
between Clinton and the Senate. When the federal government shut down, it
allowed the state governments to pass a whole bunch of laws they'd been
trying to pass for years but that were blocked by the federal
government. In Montana there was no speed limit on highways for a
while. But then the federal government came through and passed some more
laws and that was done away with. However, it hasn't been able to push the
speed limits back to the low level they were at before it shut down.
Tom
>
> >
> > > BTW, what do you think if citizens and companies can have the
> freedom
> > > to pay as much or as less tax as they desire?
> >
> > As individuals in a democratic society, they do NOT have the freedom.
> It
> > is the majority that determines the taxation level. This is no
> different
> > than any other law in a democratic society set by vote.
> >
> > ltlee thinks a democratic society means everyone sets their own speed
> > limit and taxation level.
>
> Not at all.
> Want to know what I think? You can read from the title of this thread
> which I initiated: Taxation comes before democracy.
>
> I have no quarrel with the speed limit. A lot of American citizens,
> however, considered the requirement to buckle up, to wear helmet while
> driving a motorcycle, and etc as intrusions to personal freedoms.
>
> >
ltl...@mindspring.com
100...@dante28.u.washington.edu>,
"T. Walk" <th...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > In article <8nfnpi$j8q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net> wrote:
> > > > Every single government regulation is proactive in some aspects.
> > Take
> > > > the speed limit for example. I have no doubt millions of
drivers,
> > > > including myself, will testify that one can drive safely above
the
> > > > speed limit. Should the government then let the drivers drive at
> > > > whatever speed they feel safe?
> > >
> > > Duh. The speed limit in the United States was set by the people
of the
> > > United States (through their representatives). It was NOT set by
some
> > > autocrat who thought he knew better.
> > >
> > > Once the speed limit on interstates was 55 mph. Then enough
citizens
> > > thought that this was too slow and asked their representatives to
> > change
> > > it. It was accordingly changed to 65 mph.
> >
Thank you for the info.
Did the federal government gain anything by keeping the speed limit low?
To be sure, one can always argue that the federal government can use
the speed limit issue as a bargaining chip. Her act reflects
selfishness. IMO, it is a clear case that the federal government
considers her job to be proactive. It is her job to worry about highway
causalty assoaciated with higher speed limit.
The speed limit example also illustrated another point. Here we have
the lower level government/organization is more concerned
about "freedom to:" the freedom to reach their destination quicker. In
comparison, the higher level government/organization is more concerned
about "freedom from:" the freedom from gotting hurt while traveling.
>
> Tom
>
> >
> > >
> > > > BTW, what do you think if citizens and companies can have the
> > freedom
> > > > to pay as much or as less tax as they desire?
> > >
> > > As individuals in a democratic society, they do NOT have the
freedom.
> > It
> > > is the majority that determines the taxation level. This is no
> > different
> > > than any other law in a democratic society set by vote.
> > >
> > > ltlee thinks a democratic society means everyone sets their own
speed
> > > limit and taxation level.
> >
> > Not at all.
> > Want to know what I think? You can read from the title of this
thread
> > which I initiated: Taxation comes before democracy.
> >
> > I have no quarrel with the speed limit. A lot of American citizens,
> > however, considered the requirement to buckle up, to wear helmet
while
> > driving a motorcycle, and etc as intrusions to personal freedoms.
> >
> > >
Phipps
Maximum speed limits were imposed in the wake of the first oil crisis of
the 70's. It wasn't any particular effort to protect the citizenry from
itself, it was a disguised form of rationing.
Yes, governments can be quite proactive when it comes to such things as
keeping the economy from crashing.
Tom Goodman
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 04:51:06 GMT, Tom Goodman
><Comment...@Headquarter.CCI> wrote:
>
>>When was the last time all the American people given the right or
>>opportunity to vote for speed limit ?
>
>1. Every time Americans vote for their state or federal legislators,
>they are voting on the speed limit, albeit only indirectly.
You mean indirect dictatorship. American people don't have any right
to vote and decide if they want this term dictatorship system or not;
the AmeriKKKan regime simply gives the people two choices: vote for a
dictatorship or don't vote at all. American people don't have any
other choices. That's not democracy; democracy means people rule, not
term dictatorship.
When was the last time all the American people given the right or
opportunity to vote whether the American people can vote for issues,
laws, by laws, govt policies, or the speed limit ?
Answer: not once.
>
>2. I have long supported amending the constitution to allow
>"referendum, initiative and recall" at the federal level. In other
>words, IMHO, American voters should have the right to vote on issues
>as well as on representatives at the federal level, as they already
>can in most states. [Hint: Tom, if you don't know what "referendum,
>initiative and recall" are, please do some research before you
>comment.]
>
When will white-AmeriKKKan regime accepts a referendum by all American
Indians to vote and decide if native American Indians have rights and
freedom to separate from USA ?
Answer: never.
>3. When was the last time the citizens of the PRC voted on anything?
Chinese vote with action; they don't waste time and resources like
AmeriKKKans. Chinese show action; they show support for their govt by
showing action.
Just recently, after Chinese Communist Party govt's embassy in
Yugoslavia was intentionally bombed by AmeriKKKans, Chinese people
showed their support with action, they threw rocks at AmeriKKKan
embassy in Beijing and tens of millions marched all over China. The
Chinese people showed strong support so much that the govt has to clam
them down. That's what I call freedom (no restriction) and democracy
(people rule) !!! The next time Chinese people won't just throw rocks,
they'll be firing ICBM at where KKK and Nazi hatemongers ruling the
world.
>4. It is hypocritical to argue that voting is bad (as you have done
>many times) and then argue that America is bad because it doesn't have
>voting.
Voting can be good or bad. For example, if a bunch of Nazis and KKKs
voted and decided to kill native Indians and steal their homelands -
like what the AmeriKKKan govt has been doing to Indians, then it is
bad. If native American Indians voted and decided that they should
kick out the white-AmeriKKKan regime, then it is good.
>5. When are you going to learn that there isn't any space between the
>a word and the following punctuation?
>
When are you going to learn that there are rules of netiquette ?
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/
The Spelling Flame
It happens every day. Someone misspells a word in a public message.
One or more people absolutely must publicly correct the error. Judging
from the number of times this happens, there seem to be millions of
high school English teacher wannabes in cyberspace. Ironically,
spelling flames nearly always contain spelling errors.
The Grammar Flame
A close relative of the spelling flame, grammar flames can be even
more treacherous because the rules of grammar are less clearly defined
than spelling. Avoid flaming for grammar.
ltl...@mindspring.com
In article <r10nps0542e90r9nv...@4ax.com>,
jimw...@transend.com.tw wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 04:51:06 GMT, Tom Goodman
> <Comment...@Headquarter.CCI> wrote:
>
> >When was the last time all the American people given the right or
> >opportunity to vote for speed limit ?
>
> 1. Every time Americans vote for their state or federal legislators,
> they are voting on the speed limit, albeit only indirectly.
>
> 2. I have long supported amending the constitution to allow
> at the federal level. In other
> words, IMHO, American voters should have the right to vote on issues
> as well as on representatives at the federal level, as they already
> can in most states. [Hint: Tom, if you don't know what "referendum,
> initiative and recall" are, please do some research before you
> comment.]
>
> 3. When was the last time the citizens of the PRC voted on anything?
1. Citizens naturally need to communicate with their government to
express their likes and dislikes.
Voting is one form of communication but hardly the only form or the
most effective form of communication. "Referendum, initiative and
recall" are also legitimate communication tools. In the PRC, the CCP
and associated organizations provide the channels for bi-directional
communication effectively. In addition, the absence or presence of
protest, demonstration, and riots are also good indicators on whether
certain government policy are accepted.
2. Some issues are divisive and frequent protests and demonstrations do
not necessarily mean the government is wrong. An obvious example in
America is the right to abortion versus the right to choice. Don't
think the issue is solved to anyone's satisfactory despite numerous
votings. Pro-lifers are still pro-lifers. Pro-choicers are still pro-
choicers.
[Hint: Except for villagers voting for their chief, never. BTW, TG has
> sometimes claimed that PRC citizens vote, even though the CCP says
> that they don't. This is as close as TG has ever gotten to criticizing
> the CCP.]
>
> 4. It is hypocritical to argue that voting is bad (as you have done
> many times) and then argue that America is bad because it doesn't have
> voting.
>
> 5. When are you going to learn that there isn't any space between the
> a word and the following punctuation?
>
> Right How are you?
> Wrong How are you ?
> Right I have a book, a pencil and an eraser.
> Wrong I have a book , a pencil and an eraser .
>
> Love, Jim
>
> "These young men and women are only a small number of the
> victims of June 4 that I know of. Relatives of some victims, fearful
> of official pressure, are unwilling to reveal publicly the names
> and circumstances of the deaths of their loved ones, ....The
> government has adopted a policy of forbidding discussion and
> making people forget June 4." Ding Zilin, The China Reader,
> Pages 210-211.
>
ltl...@mindspring.com
mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> Maximum speed limits were imposed in the wake of the first oil crisis
of
> the 70's. It wasn't any particular effort to protect the citizenry
from
> itself, it was a disguised form of rationing.
I agree that lowered speed limits were imposed in the wake of the first
oil crisis of the 70's. I had wrote the same in the beginning my Aug.
17th post.
However, keeping the low speed limit, I believe, was the handiwork of
the Highway Safety department. Did the agency become more dictatorial
over the years? Certainly not.
Rather, it liked the yearly causalty number dropped from 50000+ to
40000+ despite more miles were traveled over the year so much that. I
the department tried to keep lower speed limits to protect the citizens.
If you agree with me on this, may be you can also agree experiences and
history count in explaining government actions. The Highway Safty
Department could only act proactively because it had both sets of
historical data, yearly causalty at 75 mph and yearly causalty at 55
mph available for comparison.
Consequently, a younger government agency was happy with 75 mph while
the same but more experienced agency preferred a lower speed limit
against many citiens' wish.
> Yes, governments can be quite proactive when it comes to such things
as
> keeping the economy from crashing.
>
akw...@my-deja.com
> 1. Citizens naturally need to communicate with their government to
> express their likes and dislikes. Voting is one form of communication
> but hardly the only form or the most effective form of communication.
> "Referendum, initiative and recall" are also legitimate communication
> tools. In the PRC, the CCP and associated organizations provide the
> channels for bi-directional communication effectively. In addition,
> the absence or presence of protest, demonstration, and riots are also
> good indicators on whether certain government policy are accepted.
The netter's understanding of how a democratic government function is
shockingly muddled ....
Votes, referendum, initiatives, recalls and the like are not "tools of
communication" with the government. They are statutory powers to hire
and to fire. They are vested in the political franchise granted to each
and every eligible citizens of the state.
In other words, they are orders and directives to be followed; not
advises or suggestions to be discussed ....
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Solana Ranch/Valley Center, California, USA.
ltl...@mindspring.com
akw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> ltlee:
>
> > 1. Citizens naturally need to communicate with their government to
> > express their likes and dislikes. Voting is one form of
communication
> > but hardly the only form or the most effective form of
communication.
> > "Referendum, initiative and recall" are also legitimate
communication
> > tools. In the PRC, the CCP and associated organizations provide the
> > channels for bi-directional communication effectively. In addition,
> > the absence or presence of protest, demonstration, and riots are
also
> > good indicators on whether certain government policy are accepted.
>
> The netter's understanding of how a democratic government function is
> shockingly muddled ....
>
> Votes, referendum, initiatives, recalls and the like are not "tools of
> communication" with the government. They are statutory powers to hire
> and to fire. They are vested in the political franchise granted to
each
> and every eligible citizens of the state.
>
> In other words, they are orders and directives to be followed; not
> advises or suggestions to be discussed ....
Afraid you had confused the tools of communication with the content of
communication. For example, both firing a gun at a president and firing
a president through the voting booth express strong dislike toward the
president. The assassin and other voters clearly use different tools of
communication.
Anyway, how can one hire or fire without communication?
The fact that votes, referendum, initiatives, recalls cannot be carried
out more frequently is exactly why they are not effective. If you use
American as example, referendum, initiatives, recalls were frequently
subjected to court interpretation/deliberations on their
constitutionality and therefore subjected to extensive delay.
>
> Regards,
>
> Albert K. Fung
> Solana Ranch/Valley Center, California, USA.
T. Walk
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 akw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> ltlee:
>
> > 1. Citizens naturally need to communicate with their government to
> > express their likes and dislikes. Voting is one form of communication
> > but hardly the only form or the most effective form of communication.
> > "Referendum, initiative and recall" are also legitimate communication
> > tools. In the PRC, the CCP and associated organizations provide the
> > channels for bi-directional communication effectively. In addition,
> > the absence or presence of protest, demonstration, and riots are also
> > good indicators on whether certain government policy are accepted.
The abscence of protest, demonstration, and riots in the PRC has less to
do with the population's ecceptence of government policies, than it does
with the fact that the PRC's apparatus for crushing demonstartions is
sufficient to keep anybody from wanting to protest. The government showed
for all to see that they will kill protesters outright with the military
if they have the gall to stop the normal functioning of a city, namely,
the Capital. The understanding that the people have with the government
is that if they stick to making money and leave politics alone, the
government will not jail them forever or kill them.
To the average American, this sounds horendous.
Tom
>
> The netter's understanding of how a democratic government function is
> shockingly muddled ....
>
> Votes, referendum, initiatives, recalls and the like are not "tools of
> communication" with the government. They are statutory powers to hire
> and to fire. They are vested in the political franchise granted to each
> and every eligible citizens of the state.
>
> In other words, they are orders and directives to be followed; not
> advises or suggestions to be discussed ....
>
> Regards,
>
> Albert K. Fung
> Solana Ranch/Valley Center, California, USA.
T. Walk
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <399E1F...@slip.net>,
> mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > >
> > Maximum speed limits were imposed in the wake of the first oil crisis
> of
> > the 70's. It wasn't any particular effort to protect the citizenry
> from
> > itself, it was a disguised form of rationing.
>
> I agree that lowered speed limits were imposed in the wake of the first
> oil crisis of the 70's. I had wrote the same in the beginning my Aug.
> 17th post.
>
> However, keeping the low speed limit, I believe, was the handiwork of
> the Highway Safety department. Did the agency become more dictatorial
> over the years? Certainly not.
>
> Rather, it liked the yearly causalty number dropped from 50000+ to
> 40000+ despite more miles were traveled over the year so much that. I
> the department tried to keep lower speed limits to protect the citizens.
>
> If you agree with me on this, may be you can also agree experiences and
> history count in explaining government actions. The Highway Safty
> Department could only act proactively because it had both sets of
> historical data, yearly causalty at 75 mph and yearly causalty at 55
> mph available for comparison.
>
> Consequently, a younger government agency was happy with 75 mph while
> the same but more experienced agency preferred a lower speed limit
> against many citiens' wish.
First thing, I appreciate any government that trys to keep its speed limit
low whether that comes from a state government or the federal
government. Secondly, I do feel that our Federal government has grown
more proactive over the years as it has been strengthened many times by
tax increases due to wars and social movements to provide a safety net
for the entire population during the Great Depression.
The major things that changed the U.S. this century were the introduction
of the income tax during WWI, the creation of the IRS to forcebly take
taxes from the population, and the New Deal followed by the creation of a
Thirteen Million strong army in WWII. In terms of international debt, the
U.S. became the world's creidtor during WWI as the European powers had to
finance their war expenses by taking loans from the U.S. All these major
changes simply led to the growth of the Federal Government over that of
the State Governments.
A case in point is the Prohibition Act of 1919. This Act outlawed the
sale, traffic, and consumption of all alcoholic beverages within the
United States. The background of the Act is that for years there had been
a special religious interest in having alcohol outlawed. This group had
been previously suppressed by the presidential administrative when
suddenly WWI came along and the Wilson administration had the income tax
executed. Suddenly, the very conservative Wilson felt he could afford to
satisfy the Special Interest, our wealth of moral reason, the Church.
The Act was repealed in 1939 because it had created such controversy with
the enrichment of our mafia bosses. Clearly, in this case, our Federal
Government felt the right to pass universal laws in the fifty states and
enforce them with strong measures if anybody resisted. The Government
eventually backed off, but that is because is it was originally designed
to be week by its founders.
Tom
>
>
> > Yes, governments can be quite proactive when it comes to such things
> as
> > keeping the economy from crashing.
> >
>
>
goose...@my-deja.com
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <8nmvtq$mre$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> akw...@my-deja.com wrote:
is
> > shockingly muddled ....
> >
> > Votes, referendum, initiatives, recalls and the like are not "tools
of
> > communication" with the government. They are statutory powers to
hire
> > and to fire. They are vested in the political franchise granted to
> each
> > and every eligible citizens of the state.
> >
> > In other words, they are orders and directives to be followed; not
> > advises or suggestions to be discussed ....
>
> communication. For example, both firing a gun at a president and
firing
> a president through the voting booth express strong dislike toward the
> president. The assassin and other voters clearly use different tools
of
> communication.
I am afraid you had confused "firing" a gun and "firing a president
through voting".
I would not call "firing a gun at a president" a communication. I am
not a Ph. D on English studies, but I suppose communication means
mutual, and it does not mean termination. Using a gun does not satisfy
the definitions above.
> Anyway, how can one hire or fire without communication?
>
> The fact that votes, referendum, initiatives, recalls cannot be
carried
> out more frequently is exactly why they are not effective. If you use
> American as example, referendum, initiatives, recalls were frequently
> subjected to court interpretation/deliberations on their
> constitutionality and therefore subjected to extensive delay.
Please let us know how long you have been in the United States and how
many initiatives and referendum you have participated in and/or
observed.
If you argue that votes, referendum, initiatives and recalls cannot be
carried out more frequenty is exactly why they are not effective, then
a corollary would be "votes, referendum, initiatives and recalls are
not carried out less frequently is exactly why they are effective".
Now back to the discussion about China because we are addressing this
in a China forum. If you do not think votes and referendums are
effective, what method do you believe to be more suitable for China?
We can address the best method under current China, and another best
method if all other ideal conditions are met (say, people are rich
enough; people receive appropriate educations, and so on).
And I can even turn back to the smuggle scandal for Yuanhua in Fujian
Province for which we had a "communication" before, when you accused
Taiwan was responsible/involved in the smugglings. Without votes,
referendums, initiatives and recallings, if the scandal investigation
goes nowhere because the investigation touches a high/senior CCP
official, or the corruption was found to be deeply correlated with CCP
and further investigation would terribly smear CCP image, what can
Chinese do to "communicate" with Beijing that the Chinese are no longer
satisfied with the corruption?
ltl...@mindspring.com
100...@dante19.u.washington.edu>,
To an individual who had lost a love one. The loss is desvastating. It
does not matter the loss was due to government/police action or due to
higher speed limit.
Yes, one can complain about the PRC government for her lack of
foresight and her failure in experimenting with kinder and gentler ways
in dealing with protestors. Similarly, one can also complain about the
younger US Highway Safety Department for not experimenting with
different speed limits before setting it at 75 mph before the oil
crisis.
Tom
>
> >
> > The netter's understanding of how a democratic government function
is
> > shockingly muddled ....
> >
> > Votes, referendum, initiatives, recalls and the like are not "tools
of
> > communication" with the government. They are statutory powers to
hire
> > and to fire. They are vested in the political franchise granted to
each
> > and every eligible citizens of the state.
> >
> > In other words, they are orders and directives to be followed; not
> > advises or suggestions to be discussed ....
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Albert K. Fung
> > Solana Ranch/Valley Center, California, USA.
Walter Scott
L. T. Lee states that "both firing a gun at a president and firing a
to vote someone into office with the result that another loses or does
not gain that office is not necessarily an indication of dislike for
the losing candidate in the decision of the people. A vote for a
candidate is a choice between those who are less competent and the one
who is MOST competent as judged by the people. The concept of hate or
"dislike" is often injected into a campaign process by proponents of
one candidate over another. Some voters take the positions of such
proponents to heart. Whether voters, on the whole, express a clear
black or white opinion of like versus dislike, love versus hate, or
YES versus NO in referendum, is a thesis L. T. Lee has not proven and
cannot prove as long as the true motivations of voters will
principally remain in the minds of voters where they are not
available for empirical analysis of the whole instead of a portion --
stratified or not -- of voters. Accordingly, dislike for a losing
candidate or proposition may not be the issue for those who vote.
The equation of assassination to the vote of the people is extremely
questionable. This concept deserves little discussion insofar as there
is little in logic or evidence to support the notion there is
reasonable compatibility between a vote for a candidate and
assassination of his/her opponent.
The PRC would do well not to argue that a vote for one person or
concept is a pristinely black or white expression of "dislike" versus
like for the losing candidate or proposition insomuch as the
proponents of reunification on Taiwan did not appear to receive
majority affirmation in opinion polls as the last election cycle
loomed and, as illustrated by opinion polls, while support is
significant at this time, the expression of support for reunification
is still a far cry from majority support. Ergo, by L. T. Lee's logic, a
referendum today on reunification might result in failure of the
proposition to reunify, and Taiwan would have expressed "dislike" for
reunification. However, and in contradiction to L. T. Lee's myopic
point of view, the choice might be one that would hinge on confidence
or lackthereof that reunification could or would result in PRC
governance of Taiwan that would provide what the people of Taiwan want
as the PRC refrains from that which the people of Taiwan DON'T want.
Thus, the issue might NOT be disdain for reunification but a lack of
confidence the PRC can truthfully promise reunification will not come
with political repression and/or the robbing of economic assets on
Taiwan.
Walter Scott
What Future Can The PRC Expect Without Implementation Of Democracy And
Democratic Principles In Some Unique Form Accompanying Economic Progress?
NTReader v0.30(P)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
Tom Goodman
Fact: Most Americans don't support nor voted for Clinton, but he
became the president anyway. During the sex scandal case, American
people wanted Clinton resign, but he stayed on anyway; the people
couldn't do anything about it.
Point: Democracy means people rule, not term dictatorship. The average
American people don't have any right to rule their own country, they
are forced to surrender their right of rule to the dictatorship in
white house, CIA and military. In this case, voting is useless.
Fact: US govt suppressed more protests than Nazi Germany. During
AmeriKKKa's invasion of Vietnam, thousands of anti-war protests were
suppressed in USA; many peaceful protesters were arrested and thrown
into jails; some killed. Just recently, US govt cracked down on
40,000 anti-poverty protesters in Seattle, and also in last week's
protest against "Democratic Convention". On the other hand, Nazi
Germany refused to suppress anti-Jews protests which resulted in the
holocaust that killed 6 million Jews.
Point: There are good and bad protests. The US govt suppresses the
good protests. Nazi Germany allowed the bad ones.
Fact: Referendum was not implemented to achieve the decision to
illegally and immorally establish the United States. U.S. was set up
illegitimately by some white European colonists against native
American Indians' will and rights. Native Indians have been demanding
self determination and freedom, but their referendum is not respected
by the white AmeriKKKan regime.
T*o*m G*o*o*d*m*a*n
True Christians Are Communists !
Acts 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were
of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them
that ought of the things which he possessed was his own;
but they had all things common.
goose...@my-deja.com
There is a difference. If the government raise the highway speed
limit, it is still your freedom to operate your vehicle in the same
speed instead of that everyone has to drive at a higher speed (Some
states like Utah, have set a minimum speed on Interstates for 40mph
through a large segment of Interstate 15). To put it in another way,
much of your own safety is still in your hands.
This is different from your protest/demonstration being eliminated by
the government/police, unless you want to argue that whether to join
the demonstration/protest or not is in your hands too.
> Yes, one can complain about the PRC government for her lack of
> foresight and her failure in experimenting with kinder and gentler
ways
> in dealing with protestors. Similarly, one can also complain about the
> younger US Highway Safety Department for not experimenting with
> different speed limits before setting it at 75 mph before the oil
> crisis.
It is true that you can complain for both cases. However, in the US
you can write in columns in newspapers, tell your friends, write to
your representatives, to raise or lower the speed limit. Your effort
might not be effective, but very likely you won't have any troubles
from the government. I am not so sure you can do similar things for
protests in PRC without reservation.
Since you raised this issue, may I ask about the current speed limit
(in kilometers per hour) set for the freeways in PRC? How does the
government decide this speed limit? Do you want to complain about the
PRC government for not experimenting with different speed limits before
setting the current speed limit?
Personally I do not think US NHTSA or PRC government related to highway
speed need to do this kind of tests because it is not possible to do
this kind of tests. The speed limit for a special segment of highway
depends on many factors, like the slope, the curvature, whether it is
subject to strong side wind condition, and so on. It is not realistic
to conduct this kind of tests throughout a large country like the US or
PRC, say, what you obtain from highways in the Bluegrass region of
Kentucky might not be applicable for Interstate 15 through the Mojave
Desert. However, if you insist to blame the US government for not doing
this kind of tests, I hope you hold the same standard for PRC government.
(For your information, in the United States it is National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under Dept. of Transportation in
charge of this issue, not US Highway Safety Department).
ltl...@mindspring.com
Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net> wrote:
> "T. Walk" <th...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > The abscence of protest, demonstration, and riots in the PRC has
less
> > to do with the population's ecceptence of government policies, than
> > it does with the fact that the PRC's apparatus for crushing
> > demonstartions is sufficient to keep anybody from wanting to
protest.
> > The government showed for all to see that they will kill protesters
> > outright with the military if they have the gall to stop the normal
> > functioning of a city, namely, the Capital. The understanding that
> > the people have with the government is that if they stick to making
> > money and leave politics alone, the government will not jail them
> > forever or kill them.
> >
> > To the average American, this sounds horendous.
>
If you believe Chinese citizens can be silenced by the government, you
are mistaken.
The following excerpt is an example showing how public opinion had
challenged govermment policy of the utmost importance.
http://www.nbr.org/publications/report.html
================================================================
Shortly after President Clinton turned his back on the WTO deal,
details of China’s concessions appeared in a 17-page document posted on
the USTR web site. The posting may have been intended to whip up
support for the deal in the business community, but it also seems to
have been intended to exert pressure on China, to ensure that the
Chinese did not backtrack on their offer. Whatever the reason,
publication of the document proved to be almost as great a
miscalculation as President Clinton’s decision not to accept the deal.
First and foremost, the posting of the concessions was widely seen in
China as a way to publicly hold the government’s feet to the fire, an
action bound to evoke a hostile response.
Second, if Chinese interlocutors are correct in saying that the package
of concessions is not accurate in all respects, then the posting
also "boxed in" the Administration itself. After all, if the April
agreement (as reflected in the USTR posting) had not been good enough,
then any retreat (even one reflecting Chinese understandings of what
had been offered) could be savaged by opponents on Capitol Hill.
Third, the posting apparently gave many officials back in China their
first full look at the package that had been put together, or at least
at the provisions that Zhu had agreed to.
Fourth, the posting allowed public opinion to play a role in China.
Large enterprises and provinces that would be affected by China’s entry
began to calculate the impact on themselves. With the posting, the
Chinese government lost control of the flow of information.10
By the time Zhu returned to China, the opposition, which had been muted
before his trip, began to burst forth. Ministries that felt that the
concessions would hurt them lost their inhibitions in voicing their
complaints. Wu Jichuan, minister of Information Industries (including
telecommunications) reportedly tendered his resignation (which was not
accepted). Moreover, the USTR posting allowed the broader public to
weigh in, and Zhu was abused mercilessly by public opinion. Articles on
the internet as well as student demonstrators in May labeled him
a "traitor" (maiguozei). At the same time, some old cadres have been
known to mutter that the government’s readiness to accept globalization
was like Wang Jingwei’s willingness to serve as head of Japan’s puppet
government in occupied China during World War II. Others have called
Zhu Rongji’s compromises in Washington the "new 21 demands selling out
the country"—a reference to Japan’s infamous demands of 1915 that
sought to reduce China to a colony.
It is important to note that opposition to the WTO agreement was not
limited to stodgy bureaucrats and hardline ideologues (although their
voices were definitely heard). Some articles blasted "globalization" as
a mask for Americanization.11 Prominent intellectuals and intellectual
journals came out against the agreement, at least for the present
time.12
In the wake of this rising tide of hostility, Jiang Zemin told an
internal meeting that China had waited 13 years to join WTO (GATT) and
it can wait another 13 years. Accordingly, Li Zhaoxing, China’s
ambassador to the United States, declared that "China upholds
principles and will not strive to enter the World Trade Organization at
any cost."13 Even State Councilor Wu Yi, who helped hammer out the WTO
deal, appeared to back off. She told reporters that the government
would solicit opinions from various big enterprises, such as China
Telecom, and that "[i]f people thought that... the United States
demanded too much from us, we could give up the idea."14
====================================================================
Jim Walsh
>In article <8nov4r$o44$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net> wrote:
>> "T. Walk" <th...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> > The abscence of protest, demonstration, and riots in the PRC has less
>> > to do with the population's ecceptence of government policies, than
>> > it does with the fact that the PRC's apparatus for crushing
>> > demonstartions is sufficient to keep anybody from wanting to protest.
>> > To the average American, this sounds horendous.
Well, it is wonderful to see some faint examples of public debate in
the PRC, but the fact remains that the opposition was not able to
change a single detail of China's WTO application; JZM disingenuous
rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.
BTW, was wide ranging discussion permitted of the CCP's decision to
outlaw the FLG? This is a rhetorical question. No hint of any such
debate was allowed to get into the media. My understanding of the
reason that the debate about the WTO concessions was allowed to occur
because factions in the top leadership of the CCP opposed the
concessions and protected those who spoke against them.
BTW, Mr. Ltlee's "evidence" that the Chinese people have not been
completely silenced stands in marked contrast to Mr. Ltlee's staunch
support of the CCP and its policy of silencing debate.
Walter Scott
Propagandists or trolls -- whichever they may be -- attempt to change
the subject to that which may evoke a flamewar, and to that which is
more comfortable for the troll or the propagandist and his/her superiors.
Propagandists also make wild assertions, often referring to them as
fact, without the slightest citation to or quote from valid supporting
information simply because there is none available.
ltl...@mindspring.com
First of all, American culture is a car culture. Secondly, the
probability of accident depends on the other drivers' as well as your
own speed.
>
> This is different from your protest/demonstration being eliminated by
> the government/police, unless you want to argue that whether to join
> the demonstration/protest or not is in your hands too.
>
> > Yes, one can complain about the PRC government for her lack of
> > foresight and her failure in experimenting with kinder and gentler
> ways
> > in dealing with protestors. Similarly, one can also complain about
the
> > younger US Highway Safety Department for not experimenting with
> > different speed limits before setting it at 75 mph before the oil
> > crisis.
>
> It is true that you can complain for both cases. However, in the US
> you can write in columns in newspapers, tell your friends, write to
> your representatives, to raise or lower the speed limit. Your effort
> might not be effective, but very likely you won't have any troubles
> from the government. I am not so sure you can do similar things for
> protests in PRC without reservation.
I am sure the PRC citizens can.
> Since you raised this issue, may I ask about the current speed limit
> (in kilometers per hour) set for the freeways in PRC? How does the
> government decide this speed limit? Do you want to complain about the
> PRC government for not experimenting with different speed limits
before
> setting the current speed limit?
> Personally I do not think US NHTSA or PRC government related to
highway
> speed need to do this kind of tests because it is not possible to do
> this kind of tests. The speed limit for a special segment of highway
> depends on many factors, like the slope, the curvature, whether it is
> subject to strong side wind condition, and so on. It is not realistic
> to conduct this kind of tests throughout a large country like the US
or
> PRC, say, what you obtain from highways in the Bluegrass region of
> Kentucky might not be applicable for Interstate 15 through the Mojave
> Desert. However, if you insist to blame the US government for not
doing
> this kind of tests, I hope you hold the same standard for PRC
government.
My point is we should take the government's/agency's history and
experience into considereation in evaluating and understanding their
behavior. Both the PRC treatment toward the
protestors/onlookers/agitators and the US National Highway Safty
Administartion setting a higher and more causalty prone speed limit
both reflect inexperinces.
People change and societies change and the world change. Governing is
frequently on the job training. Government policies or activities may
be not optimal all the time, and mistakes frequently happen.
Consequently, all governments inflict pain and suffering on their
citizens.
> (For your information, in the United States it is National Highway
> Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under Dept. of Transportation in
> charge of this issue, not US Highway Safety Department).
Thank you for the correction.
Phipps
Prohibition was established by the XVIIIth Amendment to the
Constitution. Congress approved the proposal for ratification by the
States on December 18, 1917, and it was adopted by 36 States by Jan 29,
1919. The Secretary of State duly declared it in effect as of Jan 16,
1920.
[Rhode Island and Connecticut refused to adopt the Amendment on
constitutional grounds, New Jersey did not ratify it until March 10,
1922. Rhode Island and New Jersey both challenged the constitutionality
before the Supreme Court, but lost.]
Prohibition was repealed by the XXIst Amendment. The joint resolution to
propose to the States for ratification the repeal of Prohibition, passed
the Senate on Feb 16, 1933 (63-23) and the House on Feb 20, 1933
(289-121). The Amendment was ratified by 36 of 48 States and declared in
effect Dec 5, 1933.
Prohibition - at the national level - was repealed years before the date
you suggested... where did you get it?
It would also be interesting to hear whereby you assert that income
taxes were introduced during WWI: the proposal for the XVIth Amendment
authorizing the levy of federal income taxes was passed by Congress, and
submitted for ratification by the States on July 12, 1909. It was
declared ratified by the constitutionally required supermajority of
States on Feb 25, 1913; the US did not enter WWI until 1917.
Furthermore, federal income taxes predated the XVIth Amendment by a half
a century: income taxes were levied during the Civil War and in the
years immediately following. The constitutionality was unamimously
upheld by the Supreme Court in 1881, but a later Court reversed this by
a majority decision... Congress had passed a federal income tax law in
1894. So it's hard to see how WWI really had anything to do with the
imposition of income taxes, don't you think?
> Clearly, in this case, our Federal
> Government felt the right to pass universal laws in the fifty states and
> enforce them with strong measures if anybody resisted. The Government
> eventually backed off, but that is because is it was originally designed
> to be week by its founders.
One of the weaknesses being, of course, the process for amendments to
the Constitution as established by Art.V of the Constitution. This
specifies not only that proposals for amendments have to be approved by
2/3 of both the Senate and the House, but also must be ratified by 3/4
of the States: either by their respective legislatures, of by
conventions.
This ensures that the Federal government simply can not "pass universal
laws in the fifty states" (sic) where these assume the form of
constitutional amendments.
The balance of power between the Federal government on one hand and the
States on the other, has shifted in both directions over time. Over most
of the 20th century, the Federal govt was ascendent... although the last
couple of decades arguably saw a relatively mild swing in the opposite
direction.
Your choice of "major things that changed the U.S. this century" is
interesting. Other could instead point to mass availability of cars, the
invention of computers (thanks to federal funding, BTW), the GI Bill...
This is meat for endless polemics.
If one take only major political developments during the 20th century,
the XVIIth (direct election of Senators) and XIXth (women's suffrage
nationwide) Amendments, and the assertion of federal authority over the
States to protect the civil rights of the citizenry, were at least as
significant as Prohibition.
In terms of balance of power between the States and the Federal
Government, the invention of the 'proactive' Feds of new ways to
increase their reach is of particular significance. The Kennedy
Administration, for example, made a novel use of the commerce clause in
the Constitution to desegregate interstate transportation, and
subsequent administrations (as well as the legislature) have steadily
extended their use of the Commerce Clause until the Supreme Court
decided relatively recently that it this has begun to be stretched too
far.
Another rather recent development is the refinement of the power of the
purse-strings: Washington doesn't even bother to pass a law directly to
enforce a nation-wide minimmum drinking age of 21 - it merely denies
federal highway funds to States that do not impose that minimum age on
its own citizens. Same for speed limits, AFAIK. :-)
Some of your arguments against the Big Bad Federal Government are poorly
tethered. A glaring one is when you said that the States took advantage
of Republicans "shutting down the government" to raise their speed
limits.
[ Actually, the reason that the speed limits were recently
> > increased is
> > > > > because the federal government shut down due to some political
> > battle
> > > > > between Clinton and the Senate. When the federal government shut
> > > > down, it
> > > > > allowed the state governments to pass a whole bunch of laws they'd
> > > > been
> > > > > trying to pass for years but that were blocked by the federal
> > > > > government.]
That is, of course, hogwash.
The Government itself did not shut down. Congress, under Republican
control, refused to pass legislation to fund government agencies. Some
services were suspended, but some departments and services used a
variety of devices, such as using reserves or unspent (but preallocated)
funds to keep their operations running; some programs are self-financing
as their income-streams are independent of yearly budgetary allocations
(such as Social Security paid for by automatic payroll taxes, and
highway construction and maintenance, paid for by excise on gasoline.)
The White House continued to function, Congress continued to meet. Even
if they hadn't: the interruption of Federal government activities and
services caused by an interruption in their funding, could not change
the legal standing of administrative or statutary regulations - of
whatever kind - by the Federal Government.
In fact, the first of the 2 shutdowns - partial, since they only covered
"non-essential services" - started on Nov 14, 1995; on the other hand,
the House voted to repeal the speed limit in September of that year
[http://detnews.com/menu/stories/17224.htm]:- nearly 2 months before the
1st shutdown.
You might enjoy the Montana Highway Patrol's webpage re the speed limit.
I must say it was bizarre to see suggestions that government is nannying
drivers by imposing a given speed limit, yet not a word about those evil
government control freaks curtailing our freedoms in other regulatory
ways: e.g. by forcing citizens to drive on the right, instead of
wherever they please. Damned government interference! ;-)
goose...@my-deja.com
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <8nq7ki$3u0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> goose...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > There is a difference. If the government raise the highway speed
> > limit, it is still your freedom to operate your vehicle in the same
> > speed instead of that everyone has to drive at a higher speed (Some
> > states like Utah, have set a minimum speed on Interstates for 40mph
> > through a large segment of Interstate 15). To put it in another
way,
> > much of your own safety is still in your hands.
>
> probability of accident depends on the other drivers' as well as your
> own speed.
First of all, American culture is a car culture probably.
Nevertheless, this does not directly reflects to the tendency to speed
(or you can draw a derivation for us, or you can explain why Toyota
Camry, Honda Accord and Ford Taurus sell better than Corvette, Mustang
and Celica). Secondly, the probability of accident mainly depends on
the relative speeds among the cars instead of their absolute speeds.
> > It is true that you can complain for both cases. However, in the US
> > you can write in columns in newspapers, tell your friends, write to
> > your representatives, to raise or lower the speed limit. Your
effort
> > might not be effective, but very likely you won't have any troubles
> > from the government. I am not so sure you can do similar things for
> > protests in PRC without reservation.
>
> I am sure the PRC citizens can.
What can PRC citizens do compared to the Americans? In the US one
year ago you can see Americans calling the US President hypocrite or
womanizer. In PRC what can PRC citizens call the corrupted former
Beijing Mayor Chen? The book "the Wrath of Heaven" (if my memory is
correct) which hinted at the investigation of Chen's corruption was
banned.
> My point is we should take the government's/agency's history and
> experience into considereation in evaluating and understanding their
> behavior. Both the PRC treatment toward the
> protestors/onlookers/agitators and the US National Highway Safty
> Administartion setting a higher and more causalty prone speed limit
> both reflect inexperinces.
Not exactly. Please be aware that the US NHTSA *DID NOT* set a higher
and more casualty prone speed limit. It simply refrains from setting a
nation-wide federal speed limit and leave individual states to decide
what speed limit they believe to be appropriate. The result is that
California and Nevada raised it to 75 mph, Montana raised it to "safe
and prudent" during the day (that is, no specified speed limit). As I
explained previously, the limit 75 mph probably does not work well in
the eastern states where there are more towns along the highways.
Can you draw an analogy with how PRC treated the protestors? An
analogy would be PRC leaves the decisions about protestors to cities
and provinces. Does it?
> People change and societies change and the world change. Governing is
> frequently on the job training. Government policies or activities may
> be not optimal all the time, and mistakes frequently happen.
> Consequently, all governments inflict pain and suffering on their
> citizens.
The Democrats have been in the White House for 8 years. How many years
have CCP been in Zhongnanhai? Which one needs more time for job
training?
And if all governments inflict pain and suffering on their citizens, in
which one of the US and PRC the people have a good chance to "change a
government" in a more peaceful way?
Blair Sheridan
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:56:59 GMT, Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net>,
>wrote:
>
>>speed limit in the United States was set by the people of the
>>United States (through their representatives). It was NOT set by some
>>autocrat who thought he knew better.
>
>
>Speed limit is set by Motor Vehicle Transportation branch; it's not
>set by the majority nor even their "representatives",
>
Why then does it differ between states?
-----------------------------------------
"...and lo, did the anvil drop upon Tom Goodman's head and
yea verily was he made a cretin. Thenceforth, ascribeth he to
me a love for the Chinese Communists, which I have not, as
though the Nazis' 'Gott mit uns' were not enough. Oy vey."