flipper:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:29:41 +0100, "F. Bertolazzi"
wrote:

Thanks for your accurate and clear explaination.
I will read your notes to a friend of my parents, professor (and lawyer) of
fiscal law that wrote some volumes on our fiscal history and ask him to put
down a similar timeline for what happened here, if you like.

Yes, I would.

Ok. I will. I don't kow why, this is a busy period of the year for
ex-politicians (so honest that he did not get nominated again to run for
election).

Europe had the 'divine right of
kings' tradition whereas many of the early settlers here came
specifically to get away from persecution under that system.

This is particularly evident in the relationship with public servants.
There they are the taxpayer's eployees, here they are the link betweek the
King and the subject. This is the most precious difference. Keep it.
Maybe it's not always that way, I don't know, but the only public employee
that mistreated me was from the INS. Well, given the scope of the agency
she may be excused.

Point being, the Jeffersonian philosophy of government explicitly
rejects 'top down rule' (instead, legitimate political power
originates with the people) whereas it seems to me that Europe
basically sort of 'readjusted' the top to better accommodate the
bottom but retained an acceptance of government 'superiority', so to
speak.

See above.

That's probably not the right words and overly simplistic but maybe
there's a nugget in there somewhere.

Nugget? Mother lode.

The progressive-socialist-left over here has been doing it's best to
erase Jeffersonian philosophy from the political discourse as well as
the educational system.

HA! One point in which Europe leads America! :-(

The point is that, in the end, governments do what the people want them to.
People want as little resposibility as possible. No, as impossible.

That's a common saying over here too but I have mixed feelings. In
theory people *do* 'get what they want' but they can also be fooled,
as one complication.

Well, in the short term maybe. But, in the long one, they prevail.
I undrstand your optimism, but... look around you. Half of the people is
below average, but they don't know it. By the way, have you ever read this?
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDo...3958 4049.pdf

One could argue that's still the people's fault, for letting them get
away with it, but we don't apply that same standard to fraud in the
public sector.

The socialistoids here, after having done, according tho The Economist (the
real one, directed by Bill Emmot, not the current asshole) the most
brilliant financial operation in the history of finance (but the article
ends by saying that, if they had been the managers of a regular company,
they would have been thrown to jail for false account), protested a lot
because Berlusconi (have you ever heard of him?) deleted a law about
private company financial reports.

Two weight, two measures. That, together with
http://media.photobucket.com/image/s...lism.gif?o=114
are the basis of Modern Socialism.

Public healthcare

You have an interesting way of viewing it. I view it more as the one
of the steps in creating dependency.

I believe that you make politicians smarter and meaner than they are.
They're just regular people, a little more thirsty for power, but basically
limited by the four years horizon, during which they have to abuse their
power, but in a way that will allow them to be re-elect.

Elected or nominated in some commission. Well, maybe you're right, the
broader the field of intervention of the government, the more commissions.