没错,吴思说过,白大哥也说过。


所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛

送交者: Amsel 于 2011-02-17, 14:22:09:

回答: for hunhun - ji hui lai le 由 短江学者 于 2011-02-17, 14:10:00:

Democracy As Tyranny

by Keith Preston
http://www.anti-state.com/preston/preston2.html

引用:
Under a monarchy, the nation is considered the personal property of the king. The nation is then added to the monarch's own personal estate. Naturally, the monarch wishes to improve the value of and maintain the quality of his estate and the prosperity of his estate is connected to the prosperity of the nation as a whole. The monarch also wishes to increase the wealth of the nation for the sake of his posterity and his legacy. A monarch will not wish to tax his subjects to the degree that overall productivity declines and the wealth of the nation, and therefore the monarch's personal and family wealth, decreases. On the other hand, democratic rulers are merely the trustee managers of publicly owned resources. They cannot use these resources once they leave office nor can they bequeath public resources to their offspring. Therefore, the incentive is great to consume in the present with no regard for the future. Also, the higher taxes are at the present time the more resources will be available for democratic rulers to make use of. The long-term effects of such taxation on wealth creation are irrelevant to politicians whose position is temporary. Similarly, as democratic rulers are not personally liable for debts that they incur, but may instead pass such debts on to future generations of taxpayers, there is no incentive for frugality in the present while there is every incentive for wastefulness and improvidence. This explains why taxes and public debts are much higher under democratic governments than under monarchical ones.




所有跟贴:


加跟贴

笔名: 密码: 注册笔名请按这里

标题:

内容: (BBCode使用说明