In other words, you value the original Republic. Franklin was right about voting but a bit naive to not realize that simply giving citizens the right to vote almost guarantees the destruction of the Republic. By the way, if you have this problem with the arbitrary creation of values then do you think slavery should not have been abolished? Do you think women should not have the right to vote?
In 2006 63% of Americans said they found the NSA program acceptable. As that number falls what do you think will happen to the NSA? They will lose their powers. Why will that number fall? The less fear of terrorism the less need for agencies with increased powers. When citizens have the right to vote and freedom of speech citizens have the ability to vote in politicians who advocate the destruction of agencies they no longer value. Therefore it is impossible to call the NSA a gestapo like force.
The quality of life on average has risen dramatically over the last 100 years so you are shooting yourself in the foot here.
I follow your point. However, this is not the same nation as in 1974. Just ask any oldtimer and he will tell you overall the erosion of rights since that time has been ongoing.
If you look at the NSA example you can see that the rights that have eroded between 1974 and now have been warranted and supported by the majority of citizens. The war on drugs is another example where rights have eroded but only because the majority of citizens support it. Which event where the erosion of rights occurred has there not been a majority of citizens advocating the erosion of those rights?
Again the delineation is between rights to freedom from other people's desire to abuse yours, and rights to resources. Obviously slavery should be abolished since it stands in contradiction to freedom. Women voting- no problem. Franklin didn't say voting was the problem per se, but voting yourself money is the problem. The founding fathers saw this and said only white male landowners could vote. The modern version of that is only people who actually pay a net sum of money to the government should be allowed to vote, which I agree with. Only producers should be allowed to vote, in the spirit of what the founding fathers wanted. You might say that things change and evolve, but remember these people were a collection of extraordinary guys who had a few thousand years of human history to draw upon. They happened to create one of the most properous and free societies ever, not perffect, just damned good. Along comes socialism and uses the politics of envy to leech off the fruits of capitalism- very destructive, has a poor track record.
So in theory, from what you said, any measure of envy should be quite high in the more socialistic societies, is that right?
no, redistribution is from the politics of envy. You can get rid of envy if everyone is miserable equally. The Soviet Union was like that and for a long time the ideal in Sweden was a flat income distribution until they realized they were on the path of economic suicide. Look around the socialist world, you'll see nothing but capitalist reforms. It just doesn't work, especially in a highly inhomogeneous society.