Entelechy:
here you are attributing the growth of the middle class to democracy rather than to its true source, industrializationmlocher: the two go hand in hand. without a free democracy, people will not invest in industrialization. people will not take risks if they cannot reap the rewards.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I fail to see how democracy (a means of choosing political leaders) produces necessary pre-conditions for risk taking and capital creation. The more important pre-condition would seem to be property rights. Risk taking occurs when one is secure in one's posessions.
can you clarify why you think the bill of rights has not worked? just curious to get your views.
Well, let's see:
1st Amendment: anti-establishment clause has become an anti-religious bludgeon.
2nd Amendment: Meaning distorted into irrelevancy.
3rd Amendment: Violated in spirit by drug war posse comitatus exceptions.
4th Amendment: No-knock raids, secret tribunals handing out warrants, "probable cause" extended to the point where the exception is now the rule.
5th Amendment: Environmental wetlands laws, eminent domain, business regulation in general
6th Amendment: jury "selection" that insures that you will be tried not by your peers but by the moronic and the senile, moving of trials out of the jurisdiction where the crime was committed because of "too much media coverage"
7th Amendment: Numerous courts are jury-less today. Most importantly, tax courts have no juries. Furthermore, all courts are essentially jury-less due to the jailing of jurors who engage in "nullification" or otherwise fail to heed the judges "instructions" -- themselves a seventh amendment violation in many cases.
8th Amendment: mandatory minimum sentencing, regulatory fines
9th Amendment: You name it
10th Amendment: Social security, medicare, farm subsidies, corporate welfare, etc . . .
A bill of rights only restrains a democratic government so long as the people understand it. Since our people have lost their understanding of liberty, no piece of paper will protect them from demagogues.
thanks for your comments on the violation of the bill of rights. i especially agree with your description of the rape of the first amendment. i will respond to your question:
i am not sure what you mean by this [that free democracy and industrialization go hand in hand]
a point of clarification that may have gotten lost in the shuffle: i define free democracy to be a democracy where the citizens have basic freedoms, but more importantly are not supporting a large government. that is, they keep most of the fruits of their labor. i define a socialist democracy to be a government where you elect the officials, but the government intervenes significantly in your life.
a person will only invest in a business if he can reap the benefits of his risk. he reaps these benefits when two things occur: the government does not take them and barbarians or other invader does not take them. this only happens when there is a free democracy and a strong militia (or in the case of europe, a strong uncle to provide protection.)
i hope that clarifies what i mean. if not, let me go further. democracy in western civilization preceeded the industrial revolution. england was moving to a democracy with the signing of the magna carter in the 1200s i think. it had a strong militia (and had easily defendable borders). it benefited highly from the industrial revolution, and those who invested benefited extremely well. i can make the same comments about the united states -- except replace the magna carta part with the dec of indep.
the industrial revolution bypassed germany initially. germany was a very loose collection of between 370 and 38 monarchies (depending on the year) under an emperor. militia was handled by each king, and typically on a more granular entity than that. overall, the empire's militia was non-existent as each king was more interested in protecting his own fiefdoms. as a result, germany could rarely muster the troops to fight an invading force. as an example, from 1618 until 1648 the thirty years ravaged germany. the habsburgs, french, swedes, austrians and turkmen all waged war against each other on german soil. from 1648 to about 1800 the average GDP per person in germany was about one-third that of england. they were an economic backwater.
in the early 1800s prussia became a power in germany and unified the northern democratic monarchies. they did this with a strong militia. this was followed by capital investment which turned germany into an economic powerhouse. of course, in 1870 the rest of germany was included in the new state under a democracy.
finally, i would like to point out that in socialistic and communistic societies, the industrial revolution had little impact and the average person lived (lives) like a peasant.
in summary, the industrial revolution is (was) necessary to improve the human condition. it only occurs in an environment that allows those who invest to reap (keep) their rewards. this only happens in a free democracy with a strong militia.
side bar: germany went very quickly from free democracy to social democracy from the death of bismarck to the rise of hitler. many people lost their fortunes during this period, and in fact after WW2 many millions of people faced starvation. (again a strong uncle came to the rescue)
i will let you have the final thought