This country is built on protest, it is what makes us who we are!

Is it not in the best interest of government to pave the way for the biggest money makers who will then pay taxes? This idea comes from the fact that in the original constitution only landowners were allowed to vote. In large part this was because the founding fathers were landowners and is therefore looked at as an oppressive move. Is it not true that we needed farms to succeed in order for the country to succeed, and in order for those farms to succeed we needed those farms to have the largest input on laws, trade agreements, even the layout of the land access to ports to protect the country’s most valuable assets. This is the first post on my new blog. I’m just getting this new blog going, so stay tuned for more. Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates.

This is the type of argument made by Macciaveli, serve your assets to keep them strong, but not so strong that they can overpower you. The American revolution came in part with hopes to remove that ‘not too powerful’ glass ceiling by spreading the power around.

The main flaw in this argument is that it is very short sighted. Farming, mining, and lumber produced our major exports, but even at the time of the drafting of the constitution there where production of valuable goods were moving away from land dependence and in the home, in factories and even the office. (The printing press made Benjamin Franklin famous, but a newspaper does not require land.)  Had we not shifted to give the non-land owners a vote, we would be stuck in a country ruled by farmers and landlords in a time when major commerce is actually fueled by media companies, Google, Uber and other technologically driven companies. Again, as business is now the money maker, should the government be primarily serving them?

I would argue that such a move would again be short sighted. Is it possible to foster the businesses of today without impeding the businesses of tomorrow? On the other hand, do we end up creating businesses that produce great wealth, but don’t pay taxes. If the majority of your country’s business is not paying taxes, the country will go bankrupt. The ‘not too powerful’ part comes back into play.

What if a government fostered new business over old? What if an entrepreneurial adventure was as easy for each citizen as falling out of a chair. If there were laws that protected the startup from frivolous lawsuits by established companies looking to keep competition at bay. If they didn’t need large amounts of money to go after big business that knew they could steal from the start ups because ‘they can’t afford the legal fight that we can’ or ‘by the time they know what we have done, we will have captured their target market’. Would this lead to a demise in older companies? Would that be a bad thing?