>> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:18:22 -0800 (PST) >> From: Rob LeGrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [EM] Interesting article
>> It's a bit off-topic, but I'm interested to know what >> those on this list (especially those of a "progressive" >> ilk) think of the following article, called Democracy, the >> God That Mugged Me: >> http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan79.html >> Please respond privately if indeed you think it's too off-topic. Thanks. Doesn't sound off topic at all. It goes right to the heart of what we mean by social choice. And it's an excellent illustration of some problems that have surfaced in other contexts recently in this very venue, such as the effects of breaking a state into districts, or gerrymandering. It's the tyranny-of-the-majority problem. We choose between the tyranny of local, provincial majorities, or tyranny of great masses. The situation described in the article is yet another example of the effects of sampling. Same phenomenon as in the sixties, when the attitude toward Jim Crow was positive in some states, but the average attitude toward it was negative in the country as a whole. As long as the state attitude prevailed, Jim Crow survived. In the power struggle, the national attitude took precedence and the states changed. Small samples allow lots of variability, lots of deviation from the mean of the population, and permit provincial lunacy to dominate the lives of local minorities. Large samples show less variability, and serve as a brake on small tyrants, but don't allow for local needs, and enforce mindless uniformity. States' rights vs. world government -- we're all familiar with the endless advantages and disadvantages of both approaches. Federations, such as the United States and Australia, are attempts to balance the two approaches. The Weston example sounds pretty bizarre -- $8,000 per resident in taxes. Though he doesn't give the length of time, so I'm sure it's not nearly as bad as it sounds, maybe a couple hundred a year. Still, that's a lot. Schools are generally funded by property taxes; in Weston, this would mean that in general, the wealthy would end up with most of the burden. Usually, this works out well. For example, Beverly Hills CA has a very low property tax rate because there is so much horribly expensive property. It seems like this should works out similarly in Weston, if per capita income is so high. In my area, school levies require a supermajority of 60%. I don't know if this is a general rule or a legal requirement. It only applies to local levies approved directly by voters, not state funding voted by the legislature. This tends to counteract the small sample effect, though of course there is no requirement that can provide absolute protection from the tyranny of the majority. Perhaps the solution is that same one used by the United States -- a balance of power at multiple levels. Localities can work out their own tax schemes, but only under rules formulated by the states, and subject to constitutional review by federal courts. By the way, I loved the title. Pretty much said it all.