Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy
Selective land ownership, caste system with no upward mobility (as 71 points out), only certain people could own and operate businesses, heavy ridiculous taxation without representation.....coupled with the monarch having the responsibility of providing for the common defense. Granted, not sure how expansive welfare/social programs were. Also, the monarch in large part controlled the clergy.
You see faint traces of that in Europe still today, esp with regards to royals living off revenues generated from all their land grabbing. There is still a general deference to royals in all things, despite the fact that in many of those countries, actual leaders are elected and leave office much like in our system. Common defense has morphed into social programs such as medicine.
In contrast, our elected officials are out after a period of a few years. Anyone can start a business. Today anyone can own land (although not previously) . We have privatized businsses, but not entirely....we also have government oversight, regulatory committees, SEC reporting requirements...all things that are rooted in socialist principles of government intervention. I think the big difference is simply the degree to which we practice our socialism. But i dont ever think we would get to the point where the average Joe Six Pack would stomach using our tax dollars to support an extravagant lifestyle for the Clintons and all their heirs in perpetuity.
|
I'm pleased you're unconcerned that an Obama presidency will put us on a slippery slope to French, leftist UK, German, USSR or PRC ethos. That you have given this some thought, and such would be unacceptable to you, says something good about you. I hope you're right.