The founding fathers were for the most part the rich upper class of American society. They wrote the Constitution to suit themselves (for example, the Electoral College system made sure that the common people did not, in their ignorance, interfere with the political process), and the CEOs of major companies are their successors, the people the constitution waas written to benefit.
Don't get me wrong, I am no communist, in fact I am centre-right on the World's Shortest Political Test, but it is obvious that any group of people with the chance to write the constitution of a new country would base it largely on what suits them, whether deliberately or through unconscious bias.
Assuming that your country has a population of 20M, as mine does, and you pay the mean level of tax, then you only pay 0.000005% of that, the rest being paid by everyone else. Since the very richest people will not sue the government, and those earning below average will not be able to afford to sue the government., you might be paying 0.00001%, but that is still a big win, and is peanuts compared to the lawyer's fees. Given that the population of the USA is about 250M, an American would expect to be paying about 0.00000001% of his payout in taxes (the average American would be paying 0.000000004%, but I am assuming that he would be spending more than the average American and thus paying more taxes). Since lawsuits are not about punishment, but about compensation (or profit, depending on how you see it), suing the government is perfectly reasonable.
Whilst I agree about freedom, the fundamental basis for civil law is the Corpus Juris Civicus, or the Body of Civil Law, which was set down by the Emperor Justinian. This does slightly pre-date Common Law, which was not established in it's modern form until King Henry Plantagenet (?sp), who ascended the throne of England in 1184 (and it was his establishment of circuit judges and legal reforms which led to his arguments with St. Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, over whether the King's judges had jurisdiction over defrocked clergy, which in turn led to the martyrdom of St. Thomas).
Slashdot Mirror
The founding fathers were for the most part the rich upper class of American society. They wrote the Constitution to suit themselves (for example, the Electoral College system made sure that the common people did not, in their ignorance, interfere with the political process), and the CEOs of major companies are their successors, the people the constitution waas written to benefit.
Don't get me wrong, I am no communist, in fact I am centre-right on the World's Shortest Political Test, but it is obvious that any group of people with the chance to write the constitution of a new country would base it largely on what suits them, whether deliberately or through unconscious bias.
Assuming that your country has a population of 20M, as mine does, and you pay the mean level of tax, then you only pay 0.000005% of that, the rest being paid by everyone else. Since the very richest people will not sue the government, and those earning below average will not be able to afford to sue the government., you might be paying 0.00001%, but that is still a big win, and is peanuts compared to the lawyer's fees. Given that the population of the USA is about 250M, an American would expect to be paying about 0.00000001% of his payout in taxes (the average American would be paying 0.000000004%, but I am assuming that he would be spending more than the average American and thus paying more taxes). Since lawsuits are not about punishment, but about compensation (or profit, depending on how you see it), suing the government is perfectly reasonable.
Whilst I agree about freedom, the fundamental basis for civil law is the Corpus Juris Civicus, or the Body of Civil Law, which was set down by the Emperor Justinian. This does slightly pre-date Common Law, which was not established in it's modern form until King Henry Plantagenet (?sp), who ascended the throne of England in 1184 (and it was his establishment of circuit judges and legal reforms which led to his arguments with St. Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, over whether the King's judges had jurisdiction over defrocked clergy, which in turn led to the martyrdom of St. Thomas).