| ||||||||||||||
Democratic
Manifesto By: Brian Andrew Roizen Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Democracy, establish Justice, eradicate corruption, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defense, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Democratic Manifesto for the United States of
America. My
purpose in writing such a Manifesto spurs not from hate of my
country, but rather from the love of it and the pride I wish to take
in it. The wise man Thoreau once said, “A government is best when it
governs least”, so then why does the government of this great
country do so much governing and exercise so much power? I truly
detest oppression of any sort, and in this particular case, the
iniquitous United States government is the oppressor. The role of
the American government has constantly been changing since America
declared independence from England in 1776. Consequently, human
knowledge has also advanced and changed. Thomas Jefferson believed
that “laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress
of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened,
as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and
opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must
advance also, and keep pace with the times” (Jefferson
5)1. It is very dubious as to whether the current
government of the United States has advanced with the same rate of
progress, or in the same manner as the human mind has advanced. Over
two hundred years ago, our founding fathers instituted a system of
checks and balances, which should have withstood the test of time.
Could it be time for an updated, more efficient system? Is a real
democratic system even possible in the modern day and age, where
power can truly reside in the people, and not in the corrupt
“representatives” of the people? Perhaps
the task of becoming a real democracy can only be accomplished when
a better understanding of the word democracy is reached. Education
is the key to the success and long life of democracy. Since the
people have the power of enfranchisement, the people must also have
a firm grasp of the democracy they live in. The schoolteacher
Margery Harriss wrote that “Democracy depends upon intelligent
understanding and understanding depends upon the precision and power
with which our thoughts, our feelings, and our great emotions can be
conveyed” (Harriss 677)2. Austin Ranney and Willmoore
Kendall assert that while “most Americans “believe in” democracy […]
Americans do not even have a clearly understood and generally
accepted conception of what democracy is” (Ranney and Kendall
430)3. Harry Kriner, who believes that democracy is an
“elusive term” (Kriner 158)4, only confirms this
interpretation. Americans often equivocally say America is a
democracy, even though in actuality, the American government is a
constitutional republic. The discrepancy in the meaning of democracy
is not only an American problem. Many prominent twentieth century
totalitarian governments “describe their one-party elite regimes as
“people’s democracies”: Marshal Stalin assures us, indeed, that they
are the only “true democracies” in the world” (Ranney and Kendall
431)5. What Stalin did not say, was that his government
was a government of the communist party, by the communist party, and
for the people (of the communist party). Orwell’s 1984 only
exacerbates the view that “modern technology has given the tyrant
states a power for evil – for the destruction of truth and of human
personality – never before seen” (Agar 86-87)6. Perhaps
the more interesting question concerns whether modern technology can
also give the people of a democracy a power for good – for the
creation of truth, individuality, and freedom? Posing the antithesis
to the Soviet system, is the Western concept of democracy, which
“has never been better expressed than in Lincoln’s formula:
government of the people, by the people, and for the people”
(Timasheff 507)7. In this manner, the Soviet concept of
democracy is social, while the Western concept of democracy is
political. For the purposes of this Manifesto, democracy will mean
government of the people and by the people. Since
the government will not be for the people, its power and influence
are at a minimum. Where, however, does the government derive its
power and influence in the first place? The military and police
forces are obvious examples of the unquestionable power and force
the government has at its disposal, which coincidently are both
funded by the other dreaded tool the government so often uses,
taxes. Currently, the federal and state governments have a monopoly
on income and expenditure taxes. Joseph Pechman acknowledges that
“the income tax is widely used primarily because it raises large
amounts of revenue in a moderately progressive way” (Pechman
6)8. It seems fairly obvious that the income tax is
progressive not only to generate massive amounts of government
revenue, but also to reduce income inequality. Regardless of this
socialistic motive, “the trend toward greater inequality has
developed despite the existence of an income tax in the United
States for seventy-six years and of an estate tax for eighty years.
Clearly, the tax system never reduced inequality very much” (Pechman
3)9. One reason why the income tax is ineffective in
reducing inequality is due to the loopholes the highest income
earners exploit. The rich usually get out of paying their due taxes
by creating offshore “trusts”, foundations, and offshore bank
accounts. An IRS consultant reports that “the U.S. loses $70 billion
every year in revenue to this sort of tax evasion” (Euler
1)10. If the wealthy are avoiding paying income taxes,
then one of the main purposes of the income tax is not being
fulfilled. What assurance do citizens have that our tax system is
the most efficient, when the wealthy can simply use tax evasion
methods? Income equality is very important to the success of a
democracy, because “the mortality rate of democracy given
high-income inequality, [is] 80 percent; whereas it [is] 4 percent,
given low-income inequality” (Muller 990)11. While the
graduated income tax is more socialistic than democratic, there is
one method of collecting taxes that is more fair and equal to all
citizens. Even the wealthy could not avoid the Value Added Tax
(VAT), which is a flat tax rate on goods and services. Many
economists support the Value Added Tax by arguing against the
progressive income tax, which is less efficient and discourages work
incentive. Indeed, “Economists have always liked the VAT because it
is a highly efficient tax. That is, it discourages less output per
dollar of tax than any other major tax in existence” (Bartlett
2)12. The current U.S. tax system has a deadweight cost
of about 20 cents per dollar, while the VAT has a deadweight cost of
only a few cents per dollar. (Bartlett 2)13. Since the
expenditure tax, or VAT, is much more allocatively efficient than
the current income tax, the VAT is the tax system proposed in this
Democratic Manifesto. It will include two different types of taxes.
The
first will be that which is required of all people, the proceeds of
which will fund an army, inspectors, and diplomats, all of which are
necessary on a national level. The army will be run by a private
company (not the government), which will not make any profit, but
will rather operate directly from money collected from national
taxes. It is easy to notice that there is a strong bias towards
peace, since the people would have to pay more money in taxes during
war. Thus, people would be less inclined to make the choice to go to
war, since they would have to pay more money directly out of their
pockets, and consequently lower their disposable income. The army
might initially be both offensive and defensive, however, as time
and technology progress, the offensive protocol would eventually
decline until complete eradication. The defensive part would survive
because it is in accordance with the preamble of the Democratic
Manifesto: to “insure
domestic Tranquility, [and] provide for the common defense”.
The inspectors would be in charge of watching over the way the
diplomats and the army function, in order to make sure there is no
foul play or corruption within the management. Most importantly, the
inspectors would also make sure that the army is truly operating on
a non-profit basis, and that no money in siphoned in potential
scandals. Diplomats would meet with representatives of other
countries, and conduct what they do best, diplomacy. They would be
paid by nationally collected taxes. The
second category of taxes is similar to present day local and state
taxes. These taxes include direct funding to the construction and
reparation of roads, trash collection, and a police force to protect
and maintain justice. A court system will exist on a local level,
but is outside the scope of this Manifesto, and is a topic for
another paper. This second category of taxes will be added on to the
national VAT, and will vary from area to area, depending on
population density, and the very things that will need to be funded
at a local level. States will collect this local tax, however if
this process is inefficient, the people can decide to break a state
up into smaller regions, thereby making it more of a local tax. If
you have not guessed yet, this Democratic Manifesto does not support
vast government expenditures. The rationale for this ideology is
based upon the premise that government spending does not always
represent the people’s wishes and desires. When the government
decides what the people need, the idea of a true democracy is being
subjugated, since socialism is at play. Thus, in order to be in
agreement with a democracy, the people should be able to decide
where their money goes. The eminent question arises of “How will the
people decide?” arises. The people will not decide on a collective
basis, but rather on an individual basis. For example, why should
everyone pay taxes for public education? What about people who are
single, elderly, or just have no kids? Why should these people be
subject to pay for the education of other children, which they
themselves do not possess? One possible solution to this problem is
to make all education private. It can easily be argued that not
everyone has the ability to have a private education. In the present
day, it is true that private education is neither available nor
accessible to everyone, however, in the not so distant future, it
just might be. Private education will most likely become not the
exception, but the standard, due to efficiency reasons. In the
public education system, there is a combination of good and bad
teachers. Is it possible to “weed” out the bad teachers, and have
only the best and most talented teachers? I happen to believe it is
possible, via technology that does not sound too outlandish even
today. Imagine if companies ventured to record on video, the lessons
of top-notch teachers. Not only would the companies record the
lessons, but they would also record an extensive knowledge base of
frequently asked questions. If companies took the initiative, public
education would no longer seem feasible, because education would be
able to be conducted privately, and at home! To be honest, the
proposed methods are not even very futuristic, and are very possible
in the modern day and age. In fact, two of America’s premier
universities, Stanford and MIT, are already offering similar
programs. A truly futuristic type of education would allow students
to learn in a virtual reality classroom, even allowing
teacher-to-student, and student-to-student interaction, directly
from the comfort of home. Besides the obvious tax reductions from
getting rid of public education, students would really have
relatively equal opportunity to take the best classes possible, from
the best teachers, for a very low cost! U.S.
government monopoly status does not only apply to taxes, but also
applies to the United States Postal Service. USPS was originally
founded in 1775. Interestingly, the founding fathers may not have
wanted a postal monopoly at all. When compared with the earlier
Articles of Confederation, the “language of the constitution seems
to deny the power to provide service and to create a monopoly. Can
the Congress charge postage and grant itself sole and exclusive
power if the words “exact postage” and “sole and exclusive” were
deleted by the authors of the Constitution” (Priest
45-46)14. Why would the writers intentionally leave out
these important words, unless they did not want the government to
have a monopoly on the Post Office? George Priest believes that “the
authors of the Constitution intentionally drafted a postal cause
that was vague, to allow the congress the option at some later date
of withdrawing from management or of relaxing the monopoly” (Priest
50)15. Another possible answer is that Congress was in a
financial crisis, and needed a temporary means of generating money
for the army. There is no guarantee that Congress wanted a postal
monopoly, as there was no potential competitor (Priest
48)16. Proponents of USPS often make the argument that
the Post Office is a natural monopoly. A natural monopoly occurs
when economies of scale allow only one firm to effectively supply a
certain good. At first glance, the post office seems to be this
so-called natural monopoly, however, “if an industry truly possesses
natural monopoly characteristics, there is no need to prohibit
entry. By definition the dominant firm will always be able to
underbid, and thus eliminate, any potential competitor” (Priest
71)17. Thus, the natural monopoly argument is flawed in
its very premise, since USPS cannot function in a competitive
environment. The first major source of competition to USPS came in
the 1840s, when Lysander Spooner “started the commercially
successful American Letter Mail Company which competed with the
United States Post Office by providing lower rates” (Wikipedia
4)18. The U.S. government successfully suppressed
competition by taking Spooner to court, where he exhausted his
resources by claiming that “government functionaries secure in the
enjoyment of warm nests, large salaries, official honors and power,
and presidential smiles […] are altogether too independent and
dignified personages to move at the speed that commercial interests
require” (Wikipedia 4)19. Fed-Ex and UPS are further
proof that the Post Office is not a natural monopoly. Why should the
government have a monopoly status, when oligopolistic companies can
take over the first class mail industry? Even as Fed-Ex, and UPS are
already starting to take it over, technological means of
communication such as e-mail and instant messaging are gaining
increasing popularity. In fact, in the long run, USPS will be beat
not by competition, but by the increasing costs of sending mail. Not
only is sending E-mail free, but it is also instant, and thereby
more efficient. It is interesting to note that “USPS is the third
largest employer in the United States (after the United States
Department of Defense and Wal-Mart)” (Wikipedia 1)20.
USPS employs about 700,000 people, and in 2004, made a revenue of
$69 billion (Wikipedia 1)21. Since USPS has so many
employees, the elimination of this government monopoly will by no
means be easy. Nevertheless, the sooner steps are taken to allow for
free competition in the First Class mail industry, the better. Laissez-faire
capitalism is integral to the democracy proposed in this Manifesto.
In its simplest terms, Laissez-faire is a noninterventionist,
hands-off policy for the government to follow. As Thomas Jefferson
says, “agriculture, manufacturers, commerce, and navigation, the
four pillars of our prosperity, are then most thriving when left
most free to individual enterprise” (Havens 86-87)22. If
Jefferson is correct, why is it that we sometimes turn away from
Laissez-faire? Eric Goldman writes that people only want
laissez-faire when it is convenient. When people want to be left
alone, they praise Laissez-faire, but when the public welfare is
threatened, the masses bring pressure on the government. (Goldman
165)23. Since public welfare is not often aggressively
threatened, we shift away from Laissez-faire “especially at periods
of sudden embarrassment and distress […] But it’s the real duty –
that duty the performance of which makes a good government the most
precious of human blessings – is to enact and enforce a system of
general laws commensurate with, but not exceeding the objects of its
establishment, and to leave every citizen and every interest to reap
under its benign protection the rewards of virtue, industry, and
prudence” (Havens 87)24. The most famous example of
embarrassment and distress in American history is the Great
Depression. The government, under the direction of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, “tried” to fix the situation by enacting very
anticapitalistic measures, and thereby exceeded the objects of the
government’s establishment. Since America is no longer in the Great
Depression, the social security and welfare established during 1930s
can be easily seen for what they really are: perversions of American
interests that occurred during the lowest point of American history.
The only reasons that they have not been discontinued is because
one, they have been “grandfathered” in and two, they were part of
the mistaken cure for the problem that a combination of WWII and
normal economic factors got America out of. With Roosevelt’s New
Deal, “unemployment dropped to 18 percent in 1935, 14 percent in
1936, and even lower in 1937. But by 1938, it was back up to 20
percent as the economy slumped again. The stock market crashed
nearly 50 percent between August 1937 and March 1938. The ‘economic
stimulus’ of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal had achieved a real
‘first’: a depression within a depression” (Reed 5)25. If
socialistic measures did not help, why have they not been removed?
The demoralizing effect of too lavish doles on the working class,
and heavy taxing on investment and enterprise are problems that
still exist in America (Bladen 6)26. To bring in the
present day perspective, the United States economy has seen economic
growth for nearly 5 years, since March of 2001. Social security and
welfare are both examples of Socialism, which directly conflict with
the intended economic policy of Laissez-fare. Furthermore, Socialism
is the exact opposite of the American values of individualism and
self-responsibility. The
benefits and disadvantages of Laissez-faire can be seen in Hong
Kong, a comparatively free government that is assumed to be the
least interventionist. While Laissez-faire is the dominant economic
policy in Hong Kong, it also “provides the government with a
convenient excuse for doing nothing when faced with public demands
for government action” (Siu-kai and Hsin-chi 768)27. Even
though Laissez faire can be used as an excuse by the government, is
the alternative of Socialism any better? Clearly the people of Hong
Kong are opposed to Socialism since “70.5% of [the Hong Kong]
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the political system of
Hong Kong, though not perfect, was the best one could get in view of
the objective circumstances” (Siu-kai and Hsin-chi
775)28. There are four main reasons why the Hong Kong
people love Laissez-faire so much. First, Hong Kong has a very
strong economy. Second, the people of Hong Kong are refugees,
fleeing from communism. The people desire nothing more than to be
left alone, which is exactly what Laissez-faire offers. Third, the
political leaders of Hong Kong are too weak to be influential.
Lastly, the general welfare of the bottom most level of society is
still relatively well off. In
accordance with Laissez-faire theory, there can be no minimum wage.
Textbook minimum wage theory asserts that a minimum wage can be set
only above the free-market equilibrium wage for unskilled labor. If
the minimum wage is below the free-market equilibrium wage, it would
have no effect. Moreover, when a government enacts a minimum wage,
people who are willing and able to work below the minimum wage, are
not able to. The demand for labor decreases, and thus less people
are hired. Is it really the government’s job to tell people how much
they should work for? It is also interesting to note that “minimum
wage workers account for 6 to 12 percent of those employed” (Brown
133)29. Since minimum wage workers account for so little
of the workforce, the wage must be above the equilibrium wage, but
definitely not below the equilibrium, because the minimum wage still
has an effect. In conclusion, getting rid of the minimum wage would
decrease unemployment, and would perfectly be in conjunction with
Laissez-faire theory. Another
problem in our current Government is corruption. Political
corruption is hardly a new issue, as it dates even further back than
Boss Tweed and his Tammany Hall machine. Unfortunately, the modern
day has shown its own political defilers. The most recent example is
Duke Cunningham, a Republican congressman from San Diego. Cunningham
resigned after admitting to taking over $2 million in bribes. Other
prominent examples of corrupt American political leaders include
Robert Torricelli, Tom Delay, and Bill Frist. It is not in the scope of this
Manifesto to analyze the misdeeds of each of the aforesaid
politicians, however, maybe there should be several more
recent studies on political corruption. John Peters and Susan Welch
pose the question “If political corruption is in the mainstream of
American politics, why is it not in the mainstream of American
politics research” (Peters and Welch 974)30? Newt
Gingrich believes that a way to decrease corruption would be to
“shrink the size of the federal government and move power out of
Washington and back to the 50 states, the 3300 counties and even
more importantly to the American people” (Gingrich 6)31.
The last part of Gingrich’s statement is in perfect accordance with
the intent of this Democratic Manifesto. If the people have all the
power previously afforded to government representatives, there can
be no corruption! Now
comes the part you have been waiting for, the implementation and
integration of technology for the next generation of true democracy.
Sure a true democracy sounds splendid, but how will it work? The
only way the democracy will be able to function is if the technology
is accessible to every voter. The age requirement for voters will be
18, unless some other “intellectual” criteria were established for
voting. Voting will be
conducted over the Internet. Even though most people are able to
connect to the Internet from home, public voting locations would be
made available and accessible to any eligible voters who cannot
otherwise vote from home. Since the people would be voting on all
the issues, corruption would be eliminated. Somebody
might argue that government by the people can never be a reality,
however this is a spurious argument. A government by the people can
actually be a reality, since modern technology can allow all the
people to vote. Somebody
might argue that such conceptions as “common good” and “common will”
are mystical notions. This argument is flawed however, since the
majority of people will be able to vote on what they want. Thus the
“common good” and “common will” will be expressed through the
majority of votes. Somebody
might argue that in the absolute sense, liberty and equality are
contradictory values. There is a kernel of truth in the absolute
form, however the absolutes are not a part of this Democratic
Manifesto. Unrestrained liberty and equality are not even components
of the present system. Any proponent of unrestrained equality should
read Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron. Some
people would argue that the current political system is working just
fine, because everyone seems happy. The simple answer is that our
current political system is corrupt, and even though many people are
happy, the people of our great country can be much happier. Not
everyone in America is happy with the current system (including me).
Were humans not happy before the invention of electricity? But after
the invention, people were much happier. It seems as if technology
and science not only improve the human living condition, but they
can also improve politics. Some
might argue that this Democratic Manifesto is more like an Anarchist
Manifesto, given that there is no strong central government. This
argument is fallacious, as anarchy will not exist in a true
democracy, because there will in fact be a central government. Of
course, the power of this central government would be at a minimum.
If anything, the government would only function as a figurehead,
with the noble goals of the preamble at its very base. Somebody
might argue that the minority’s rights will be taken away in a true
democracy. Fortunately, the minority’s rights will not be taken away
because this Democratic Manifesto builds upon parts of a limited
majority rule system. All of a democracy’s “citizens possess certain
rights that no governmental agency may violate – even in response to
the wishes of a popular majority” (Ranney and Kendall
437)32. As Herbert Agar states, “all men have certain
minimum rights and requirements which must not be denied – the right
to look after themselves and their families in decency without being
forced into a slave relationship toward a master or toward the
state, the right to a chance to do as well for themselves and for
their children as their endowments permit, the right to the great
basic freedoms which go under the name of civil liberties, the right
to a recognition that in a true sense (perhaps best stated by the
phrase ‘in the eyes of God’ all men are equal” (Agar
87)33. Somebody
might argue that people are not smart enough to vote on important
issues. Education is vital in a true democracy, and there is
conclusive evidence that points to people becoming smarter. Wired
Magazine reports “Average IQ scores in every industrialized country
on the planet has been increasing steadily for decades” (Johnson
1)34. One of the primary reasons for this trend is the
increasing accessibility of knowledge. Oral tradition and books used
to be the only method of passing down knowledge from generation to
generation, but electronic methods, namely the Internet, have
augmented the availability of information. If
democracy is veritably a work in progress, it is clear that we need
to do a lot of work before we can become a real democracy. It is
acknowledged that many of the proposed democratic demands are not
easy to accomplish given our current state, but the sooner we work
towards these ideals, the better. In conclusion, modern technology
will allow a government to be of the people, by the people, but not
for the people, since it will not be necessary. Works Cited Agar,
Herbert. “Bases of Democracy.” The Public Opinion Quarterly
[Special Supplement: Public Opinion in a Democracy] 2 (1938): 86-88.
JStor. Brentwood School Lib., Los Angeles. 12 Dec. 2005
<http://jstor.org>. Bartlett,
Bruce. “The Right VATitude.” NationalReview.com 9 Mar. 2005.
25 Feb. 2006
<http://nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200504090845.asp>. Brown,
Charles. “Minimum Wage laws: Are They Overrated?” The Journal of
Economic Perspectives 2 (1988): 133-145. Jstor. Brentwood School
Lib., Los Angeles. 12 Dec. 2005 <http://jstor.org>. Carothers,
Thomas. “Think Again: Democracy.” Foreign Policy 107 (1997):
11-18. Jstor. Brentwood School Lib., Los Angeles. 8 Nov. 2005
<http://jstor.org>. Euler,
Mary von. “How The Rich Elude The Tax Man: The Devastating Results
Of Offshore Tax Evasion.” Global Policy Forum. 28 June 2002.
25 Feb. 2006
<http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/launder/general/2002/0528rich.htm>. Gingrich,
Newt. "Newt on the Abramoff Scandal." The Official Home-Page
of Goldman,
Eric F. “The Decline of Laissez Faire, 1897-1917.” The Journal of
Economic History 12 (1952): 165-166. Jstor. Brentwood School
Lib., Los Angeles. 17 Nov. 2005 <http://jstor.org>. Handman,
Max, Abbot P. Usher, George W. Stocking, V. W. Bladen, Broadus
Mitchell, William Jaffe, Alvin H. Hansen, and Carter Goodrich.
“Economic History – The Decline of Laissez Faire.” The American
Economic Review [Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the
Forty-third Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association] 21
(1931): 3-10. Jstor. Brentwood School Lib., Los Angeles. 17 Nov.
2005 <http://jstor.org>. Harriss,
Margery Willis. “Understanding Democracy.” The English
Journal 31 (1942): 676-677. Jstor. Brentwood School Lib., Los
Angeles. 12 Dec. 2005 <http://jstor.org>. Havens,
R. M. “Laissez-faire Theory in Presidential Messages during the
Nineteenth Century.” The Journal of Economic History
[Supplement: The Tasks of Economic History] 1 (1941): 86-95. Jstor.
Brentwood School Lib., Los Angeles. 17 Nov. 2005
<http://jstor.org>. Jefferson,
Thomas. “The Roots of Democracy,” Annals of American History.
Brentwood School Lib., Los Angeles, 15 Dec. 2005
<http://america.eb.com>. Johnson,
Steven. “Dome Improvement.” Wired.com. 24 Feb. 2006
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/flynn_pr.html>. Kriner,
Harry L. “Shall We Teach Constitutional Government or Democracy?”
Peabody Journal of Education [An All Editorial Issue] 21
(1943): 158-159. Jstor. Brentwood School Lib., Los Angeles. 11 Nov.
2005 <http://jstor.org>. Muller,
Edward N. “Income Inequality and Democratization: Reply to Bollen
and Jackman.” American Sociological Review 60 (1995):
990-996. Jstor. Brentwood School Lib., Los Angeles. 11 Nov. 2005
<http://jstor.org>. Pechman,
Joseph A. “The Future of the Income Tax.” The American Economic
Review 80 (1990): 1-20. Jstor. Brentwood School Lib., Los
Angeles. 17 Nov. 2005 <http://jstor.org>. Peters,
John G., and Susan Welch. “Political Corruption in America: A Search
for Definitions and a Theory, or If Political Corruption Is in the
Mainstream of American Politics Why Is it Not in the Mainstream of
American Politics Research?” The American Political Science
Review 72 (1978): 974-984. Jstor. Brentwood School Lib., Los
Angeles. 12 Dec. 2005 <http://jstor.org>. Priest,
George L. “The History of the Postal Monopoly in the United States.”
Journal of Law and Economics 18 (1975): 33-80. Jstor.
Brentwood School Lib., Los Angeles. 17 Nov. 2005
<http://jstor.org>. Ranney,
Austin, and Willmore Kendall. “Democracy: Confusion and Agreement”.
The Western Political Quarterly 4 (1951): 430-439. Jstor.
Brentwood School Lib., Los Angeles. 12 Dec. 2005
<http://jstor.org>. Reed,
Lawrence W. “Great Myths of the Great Depression.” Free
Republic. 2 Mar. 2006
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/720542/posts>. Siu-kai,
Lau, and Kuan Hsin-chi. “Public Attitude toward Laissez Faire in
Hong Kong.” Asian Survey 30 (1990): 766-781. Jstor. Brentwood
School Lib., Los Angeles. 17 Nov. 2005 <http://jstor.org>. Timasheff,
N. S. “The Soviet Concept of Democracy.” The Review of
Politics 12 (1950): 506-518. Jstor. Brentwood School Lib., Los
Angeles. 12 Dec. 2005 <http://jstor.org>. “United States Postal Service.” Wikipedia. 24
Feb. 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service. Works Consulted Agbese,
Pita Ogaba. “Party Registration and the Subversion of Democracy in
Nigeria.” Issue: A Journal of Opinion [Transition in
Nigeria?] 27 (1999): 63-65. Jstor. Brentwood School Lib., Los
Angeles. 15 Dec. 2005 <http://jstor.org>. Bagley,
William C. “Economic Policy and Democratic Thought: Pennsylvania
1776-1860.” The American Economic Review 38 (1948): 920-921.
Jstor. Brentwood School Lib., Los Angeles. 17 Nov. 2005
<http://jstor.org>. Reiter,
Dan. “Does Peace Nurture Democracy?” The Journal of Politics
63 (2001): 935-948. Jstor. Brentwood School Lib., Los
Angeles. 12 Dec. 2005
<http://jstor.org>. Rejai,
Mostafa. “The Metamorphosis of Democratic Theory.” Ethics 77
(1967): 202-208. Jstor. Brentwood School Lib., Los Angeles. 15 Dec.
2005 http://jstor.org. | ||||||||||||||
© 2006 Philosophy
Paradise |