Because I never said any such thing or inferred that the rich should be punished for their success. That is you eluding to another point to argue rather than sticking with the discussion at hand. The point of this discussion is to discuss the effectiveness of punishment/restitution for breaking laws of the land.

Let me put it this way, if your city imposed a one cent fine for running red lights, how often would you be tempted to run one if you could see clearly nobody was coming from the other direction, and more to the point how tempted would anybody/everybody be?

Please read the following again and then if you still want to talk about democracy being it's own worse enemy, I'll discuss that with you.

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

I better stop here. I am making the point by bringing the idea to its absurd conclusion and your getting ideas.

__________________
Avatar reads:

EMPIRE
Urban Regeneration Program
"Promoting new communities and creating jobs"
Democrat stimulus package.

Do you really believe this congress will agree to raise taxes on ONLY 2% of income earners? Do you believe as President, Obama would veto any bill that raises more?


Correlation is not causation.

This ignores damages from risk assumption since the power-elite are discouraged from undertaking excessive risk from the loss of investment far more than from petty legal disenfranchisement. Therefore, if a progressive fine is going to be established, it's either because potential damages aren't enough of a discouragement (which arrives from irrational adverse selection, excessive liquidity or money volatility, or excessive special interests in public policy) or because the power-elite are being made an example of in order to appease the masses who are sensitive to legal discrepancies (which arrives from cheap information costs, short sold asymmetric information, or exploitation of public opinion via political correctness or entertainment)....

...For example, traffic law is established in order to procure safe driving practices for the sake of deterring motorist hazard, but if I own a nice car, I'm going to drive defensively and cautiously because I don't want to deal with the hassle of getting it repaired, having to pay a hike in my insurance, and getting my name in the paper for being a moron. In fact, if the government's opportunity cost of my private contribution to social welfare via taxes and production outweighs the deterrence and hassle I have to deal with for a traffic violation, then it is in the government's interest to NOT instill a progressive tax. If the government also considers how I might set a bad example for less affluent drivers, then it has to answer as to why I'm responsible for social neglect and stands to be a hypocrite for not respecting individual responsibility.

If you put a $10,000 fine for speeding through an area, forget not speeding, I just wouldn't drive or do business in that area due to the heightened expected cost and hassle of commuting there (and I don't think that's going to help the standard of living in your community). If you do it anyway because social competition displaces my refusal to accede to your authority, then I don't see why a progressive fine is needed in the first place since wealth concentration isn't focused enough to care about higher penalties for the wealthy (unless nice cars and bad driving habits happen to be normal rather than superior goods such that excessive risks are being taken by the middle rather than upper class). Given that more people are being affected though and that social welfare is the priority, I don't see how you're going to retain popular consent for elevated taxes since more people are going to feel discriminated against.

__________________
Be curious, not judgmental. - Walt Whitman
Nothing happens unless first we dream. - Carl Sandburg

Reason-->Justice, Power-->Utility. Don't mix up the two no matter how closely they're interrelated.

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

Again...

This ignores damages from risk assumption since the power-elite are discouraged from undertaking excessive risk from the loss of investment far more than from petty legal disenfranchisement.

But of course it's inherently wrong to defend one's self and we're all obligated to let everyone else nit pick at success they didn't intend for.

No wonder there's so much exporting of American wealth via FDI into emerging markets. I guess the people will get their just desserts when their standard of living crashes through the floor due to their complacency towards persistently inflating financial and telecommunication sectors and how the political sham of abundance convinces them that popular opinion and social welfare come before everything else.

__________________
Be curious, not judgmental. - Walt Whitman
Nothing happens unless first we dream. - Carl Sandburg

Reason-->Justice, Power-->Utility. Don't mix up the two no matter how closely they're interrelated.

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

You do realize all wealthy citizens aren't the same nor does the government represent all wealthy interests, right?

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't want the masses to be whipped by the corrupt wealthy who will do whatever it takes to have their way even if it means exploting and forsakening the law to the fullest extent. People have more important things to do than deal with politics, and the only ones that should get involved are those that are willing to commit themselves to seeing the big picture. I'm sure there are non-affluent citizens who are interested in politics as well, but those citizens shouldn't have to deal with being stereotyped as being part of the noisy masses who clutter up public opinion.

__________________
Be curious, not judgmental. - Walt Whitman
Nothing happens unless first we dream. - Carl Sandburg

Reason-->Justice, Power-->Utility. Don't mix up the two no matter how closely they're interrelated.

That's the rumor!


Well if that's what you were saying you certainly were saying it in a round about way. Sounded more like, "whoa is the poor rich guy who is taken advantage of by the ignorant mass majority". So don't be surprised if the rich take their ball (of money), and go home, when they don't get their way! After all, their way is the right and only way.

Don't worry your pretty little head we will handle everything for you, is that what you're saying? Cuz that sounds like what you are saying!? The rich have been saying this since the robber baron days of the 1800's. People have also been elected their guy for that very same reason for well over 200 years now. They (the rich/elite) have also been showing the rest of us the right way to make money that will boil over (trickle down) to benefit all involved ever since the 1980's. The state of the economy right now is because of them. Looking out for their best interest, the big picture as you call it, clearly isn't working!

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

What I'm saying is that the only citizens who should get involved in government are the ones that care about all of the issues. Otherwise, they're just special interest lobbyists who should focus more on practicing law, making business, and changing culture for their own communities and livelihoods instead. In the case of representative democracy, this is necessary in order to distinguish between decentralization and corruption since the first can be misinterpretted as the second when politicians are sacrificing principle and governing structure for the sake of particular goals and preferences (even when those goals and preferences are backed by popular opinion).

As far as trickle down economics are concerned, I don't believe that's a responsible governing policy (not because it doesn't consider the welfare of the less affluent, but because supply side economics encourages government intervention). Instead, unions and consumer blocs should conglomerate and negotiate particular contracts directly with investors and entrepreneurs such that neither side has to deal with excessive competition in either labor or product markets. In a sense, this functions as a commune since both sides gradually and symbiotically acclimate themselves to each other's objectives and techniques over time while appreciating mutual welfare for the sake of mutual goals.

Minimizing bureaucracy, encouraging independence, and protecting civilized advancement are the main characteristics of honest governance; and both the wealthy and not so wealthy want this since neither side knows everything about the other nor should both sides be in conflict when it comes to discovering the potential of the natural world.

__________________
Be curious, not judgmental. - Walt Whitman
Nothing happens unless first we dream. - Carl Sandburg

Reason-->Justice, Power-->Utility. Don't mix up the two no matter how closely they're interrelated.