[mr. natural]

For anyone interested in a good read about the slow growing but steady grassroots fight against Corporate dominance click here.

I can't hardly wait for the day when the Supreme Court will have to confront this simmering bombshell of a misbegotten distinction granted Corporations as "persons."

That'll be the day we truly find out who really rules - We the People or Corporations as Persons.

[Buck_Naked]

You need to wake up. The Government does not serve you.
You are just a mere Citizen.

[mr. natural]

Oh, I'm awake alright.

Care to elaborate on just what the heck you mean?

[finboy]

Be sure to read this page and its associated links. Looks like the same sort of thing.

http://www.crystalinks.com/conspiracy.html

Don't forget to throw in some words like "far right extremists" and "neocon" to show that you're really hip to the whole corporate agenda.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by finboy:
Be sure to read this page and its associated links. Looks like the same sort of thing.

http://www.crystalinks.com/conspiracy.html

Don't forget to throw in some words like "far right extremists" and "neocon" to show that you're really hip to the whole corporate agenda.

My perspective on it is not quite the same as mr. natural's, but this isn't UFO stuff - this is serious stuff concerning the fundamental political rights of citizens, states, corporations, and nations, bearing on everything from First Amendment rights, property rights, campaign finance, and global trade. Even if they come to different conclusions, people from across the political spectrum have reason to concern themselves with it. Indeed, because it has a bearing on fundamental rights, it's an area where liberals and conservatives might find much common ground.

[thunderous_funker]

Come now, come now, zigzag. Everyone knows that politicians are never influenced by massive campaign contributors.

And powerful interests absolutely never dictate public policy by sheer force of influence.

The Federal government is the acme of ethical purity and a symbol of total integrity and virtue.

[mr. natural]

Well, zigzag, I don't know where your stance on this differs than mine, but at least you get it. I also believe t_f gets it too, notwithstanding his post above.

In any event, for anyone who is interested in reading a long but interesting legal Demo Brief as it might be presented before the Supreme Court on this issue you can click here. (You might want to download it as a PDF to take one's time to read it over.)

Anyway, as zigzag correctly notes:

this is serious stuff concerning the fundamental political rights of citizens, states, corporations, and nations, bearing on everything from First Amendment rights, property rights, campaign finance, and global trade. Even if they come to different conclusions, people from across the political spectrum have reason to concern themselves with it. Indeed, because it has a bearing on fundamental rights, it's an area where liberals and conservatives might find much common ground.

I'd really love for folks of all political stripes to see the common ground of this issue. In any event, my position is *when,* not *If,* this issue makes it way to the SC, we will witness some incredibly surreal legal fireworks.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in his dissent of "First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti": "This Court decided at an early date, with neither argument nor discussion, that a business corporation is a 'person' entitled to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific R. Co."

Yes Sir Ree, this long ago buried land mine of a *non-decision decision* is just waiting for the right fuse to force an explosion.

The question amounts to this: Who Rules The Constitution and & The Bill of Rights? We The People or the artificial Corporate creations of some people?

We'll see.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Well, zigzag, I don't know where your stance on this differs than mine, but at least you get it.

If I differ, it's mostly because (judging from past threads) I'm probably not prepared to make as big a leap as you are towards depriving corporations of certain rights, e.g. political speech. And I'm a free trade advocate in principle. But the more I learn about this area, the more I'm convinced that some things have gotten out of balance.

There was an article in the Oct. 13 issue of The Economist about the hold that Delaware has on corporate law - a topic we addressed a while back (unfortunately, the on-line version requires a subscription - I picked up a copy on an airplane). They pretty much concluded that although the federal government has made inroads towards regulation on a national level, and Delaware itself has made some token stabs at increasing board accountability, there's not much prospect for change. It will therefore probably require a grassroots-type movement. That's probably as it should be - if the feds gained more control, one can't be sure that they would do so in a way that was amenable to local and individual concerns.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The Federal government is the acme of ethical purity and a symbol of total integrity and virtue.

Quick! Let's not only give them an even bigger and constantly growing direct pipeline into our wallets- let's grant them total power over our HEALTH!

[Sven G]

The History of the Corporation: haven't read it, yet - but, at least, interesting as a "historical" Google search on "medieval corporations"...

Anyway, the very term corporation should instinctively lead to some criticism: it feels like something crystallized forever, in its static "heaviness"...

[Millennium]

The doctrine of corporate personhood was one of the worse legal mistakes in the history of the US, and I look forward to the day when it is struck down. I particularly look forward to the day when the SEC and IRS can share corporate earnings information, rather than the two separate filings which they currently file such that neither agency is allowed to see the other's filing.

There is, however, a problem. One of the major reasons that corporate personhood was enacted was the fact that only persons can enter into contracts, and that legal definition remains true to this day. This is actually a major issue, because it means that before corporate personhood can be sent to the dustbin it so richly deserves to be in, some pretty major alterations have to be made to the very definition of contracts. Unless that is done very carefully, the results could be disastrous.

It should still be done, with due care given. But don't pretend that it will be quick and easy.

[BlackGriffen]

Well, could it be argued that the shareholders give the board (or whoever signs contracts for the corp) power of attorney, or status as proxy, or some other special designation for, "Able to sign contract for me," (up to limits set by, you guessed it, a contract between us)?

BlackGriffen

[finboy]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Well, could it be argued that the shareholders give the board (or whoever signs contracts for the corp) power of attorney, or status as proxy, or some other special designation for, "Able to sign contract for me," (up to limits set by, you guessed it, a contract between us)?

BlackGriffen

Legally, you are correct. The BoD are legal agents for the shareholders. If the shareholders don't like what the BoD does, they sell their stock, or they can vote the BoD off.

[zigzag]

State law (mostly) defines the rights and obligations of corporations, and those laws can be amended to reflect the fact that corporations can do all the usual things related to their business (including entering into contracts) but do not have certain other rights. It's more a matter of political will than anything else.

The main problem as I see it is deciding where the power to regulate ultimately lies. The more it resides on a local/state level, the more inefficiencies you potentially introduce, which can backfire (and can also offend the commerce clause, which for better or worse has been interpreted very broadly). Also (as Delaware proves), the more liberal the laws in any given jurisdiction, the more other jurisdictions will liberalize their laws to compete. One solution to this would be to regulate on a federal level, or even introduce a Constitutional amendment, but that only works if you trust the federal government to do the right thing. It's potentially very complicated.

But it presents very interesting issues. We've become enamored of capitalism, and for good reason, but we often forget that it's an economic model, not a social or political model. Ideally, the interests of the corporation and the citizen will coincide, but the political power of the former should not override that of the latter.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Quick! Let's not only give them an even bigger and constantly growing direct pipeline into our wallets- let's grant them total power over our HEALTH!

Your sarcasm detector must be on the fritz.

I was poking fun at finboy's usual comments that anyone who thinks corruption is a problem must be a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

I've never advocated socialized medicine either. Rather, I think a single payer insurance system would solve almost all of our healthcare problems and, by extension, do more for our economic and labor woes than any other single policy shift.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[B]Your sarcasm detector must be on the fritz.

Relax, I think yours must be in need of repair also.

I just find it ironic, that often times the same people (not necessarily yourself) can rail endlessly against the inherent corruption and "...powerful interests dictating public policy by sheer force of influence..." etc. on the one hand, and then on another advocate turning over control of our very health, to perhaps the SINGLE most corrupt and influenced by 'powerful interests' systems ever devised.

Virtually everything some people fear about a multitude of ‘Big Corporations’ is realized in single entity of the Federal Government. I see no need for over trust of either- least of all the Fed.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Virtually everything some people fear about a multitude of ‘Big Corporations’ is realized in single entity of the Federal Government. I see no need for over trust of either- least of all the Fed.

That's only because this administration is trying to run the government for profit, with the help of a couple interested parties, and in doing so isn't acting like a responsible government. Glad you're with us on this one, Crash.

Look, corporations do wrong (not all, but some) because of greed. I've known many government workers in my life and they do their work because they get good benefits (though not good pay), not because they can rape and pillage the system. The government (usually) isn't corrupt, it's slow or bureaucratic... there's a huge difference, especially in intent.

And if it's politicians who worry you, follow the corrupt money. It'll lead you straight to one particular party. It's like finboy says, all the rich people he knows are conservative.

[thunderous_funker]

I think you've fallen victim to the ridiculous FUD surrounding the healthcare debate. If anything, a single payer system would put control back in the hands of doctors and patients more than anything else.

Again, I wouldn't advocate socialized medicine. Healthcare should remain private. But I would advocate a single-payer system so that prices can be negotiated more effectively in the interest of patients and doctors rather than a greedy insurance industry playing both sides to advantage of it's shareholders.

As corrupt and inefficient as our government can be, Medicare and Medicaid operate at 3% overhead while a typical HMO operates at 15-20%.

Not to mention that a government authority is transparent and accountable to voters.

The 1,000+ doctors who published this proposal in the JAMA make a very persuasive case indeed.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by petehammer:
And if it's politicians who worry you, follow the corrupt money. It'll lead you straight to one particular party. It's like finboy says, all the rich people he knows are conservative.

You make sense up until the point of trying to pin everything on one party. That's just silly and destroys the credibility of anyone who attempts to make such a case. Anyone with a shred of honesty about them knows that both parties are equally guilty of corruption, and neither party has a monopoly on ties to money. And it certainly has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
You make sense up until the point of trying to pin everything on one party. That's just silly and destroys the credibility of anyone who attempts to make such a case. Anyone with a shred of honesty about them knows that both parties are equally guilty of corruption, and neither party has a monopoly on ties to money. And it certainly has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.

[petehammer]

Then all I ask is this:

Who are corporate donors to Republican candidates?
Who are corporate donors to Democratic candidates?

By how much do the donated amounts differ?

The problem with what you say is they share the blame equally... they certainly do not.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Again, I wouldn't advocate socialized medicine. Healthcare should remain private. But I would advocate a single-payer system so that prices can be negotiated more effectively in the interest of patients and doctors rather than a greedy insurance industry playing both sides to advantage of it's shareholders.

But a single-payer system is socialized medicine, essentially. A government monopoly on healthcare insurance. That's what "single-payer" means.

As corrupt and inefficient as our government can be, Medicare and Medicaid operate at 3% overhead while a typical HMO operates at 15-20%.

Have you seen what Medicare pays doctors? Here's a hint: I made more money as an intern at AOL. And since doctors have to accept Medicare by law (you lose your license if you don't), that's not "negotiation". That's borderline slavery.

I agree that there are problems in the healthcare industry. But enslaving doctors -the inevitable conclusion of any single-payer system- is not the solution.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Have you seen what Medicare pays doctors? Here's a hint: I made more money as an intern at AOL. And since doctors have to accept Medicare by law (you lose your license if you don't), that's not "negotiation". That's borderline slavery.

I agree that there are problems in the healthcare industry. But enslaving doctors -the inevitable conclusion of any single-payer system- is not the solution.

Hmmm... so how does Canada work? They seem to have doctors in their hospitals.

And regarding the "slave" issue, around 120 for-profit hospitals were found to have bilked Medicare this past year for millions because of loopholes in the system that allow them to charge the government what they feel for certain procedures. So, in fact, some people are making a lot of money off Medicare.

You know, it is possible for Medicare to change. As of now, Medicare payout rates increase with inflation and are also subject to review and changing codes. If you listen to both sides (CMS vs. Doctors) you might come to the conclusion we're at a happy medium.

[finboy]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Then all I ask is this:

Who are corporate donors to Republican candidates?
Who are corporate donors to Democratic candidates?

By how much do the donated amounts differ?

The problem with what you say is they share the blame equally... they certainly do not.

Make sure you include unionized donations in those "corporate donors".

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
But a single-payer system is socialized medicine, essentially. A government monopoly on healthcare insurance. That's what "single-payer" means.

Have you seen what Medicare pays doctors? Here's a hint: I made more money as an intern at AOL. And since doctors have to accept Medicare by law (you lose your license if you don't), that's not "negotiation". That's borderline slavery.

I agree that there are problems in the healthcare industry. But enslaving doctors -the inevitable conclusion of any single-payer system- is not the solution.

I'm happy to tell you that those fears are almost entirely unfounded.

Please feel free to review the very persuasive and well reasoned arguments put forth by thousands of doctors

So much of this debate has been poisoned by sheer misinformation by the interest most violently opposed to any reform in healthcare--the insurance industry that is bleeding us all dry.

I won't say that the PNHP proposal is perfect (what proposal could be?), but we should at least get past the usual FUD and discuss the real issues. Slavery and government tyranny are not realistic outcomes of the proposal by any stretch of the imagination.

[daimoni]

.

[mr. natural]

Posted by zigzag:

If I differ, it's mostly because (judging from past threads) I'm probably not prepared to make as big a leap as you are towards depriving corporations of certain rights, e.g. political speech.

I'm not sure why this should be a problem.

Any one who wants to lobby the Government as a *citizen* on behalf of some corporate interest could still do so on their own time and with their own money, just like the rest of us.

This would go a long way toward rebalancing the playing field.

As it stands now this screwy distinction accorded corporations as "persons" not only tilts but has for all practical intents and purposes warped our political playing field in almost complete favor of the vast financial power which corporations can expend to get their way.

As CRASH HARDRIVE succinctly and quite accurately notes:

Anyone with a shred of honesty about them knows that both parties are equally guilty of corruption, and neither party has a monopoly on ties to money. And it certainly has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.

But it clearly has everything to do with this misbegotten distinction and the resulting overwhelming political advantage which corporations cash in on.

Perhaps there is hope for us yet. CRASH and I agreeing on something!

[vmarks]

It is impossible to overstate the unusual nature of American society for more than 100 years after the inception of the federal government in 1787. There were no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, drug laws, occupational-licensure laws, income taxation, gun control, public schooling, immigration controls, travel restrictions, and foreign aid.

Our ancestors believed that

(1) it is morally wrong to use government to take money from a person to whom it belongs in order to give it to someone to whom it does not belong;

(2) a person has the right to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth and decide what to do with it; and

(3) people have the right to engage in any peaceful enterprise and to travel and trade anywhere in the world.

That is what it once meant to be an American, notwithstanding the tragic and ultimately costly exception of slavery. That is what it once meant to be free.

[BlackGriffen]

Problem is that what you describe is economic anarchy.

I don't know if you'd noticed, but under anarchy, you're only as free as the next strongest thug lets you be.

Granted, people get together to rise up against the thugs and... By gum, that sounds like a government.

To mine ears, vmarks, you sound like a noble pining for the days when nobles were truly free...

BlackGriffen

[vmarks]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Problem is that what you describe is economic anarchy.

I don't know if you'd noticed, but under anarchy, you're only as free as the next strongest thug lets you be.

Granted, people get together to rise up against the thugs and... By gum, that sounds like a government.

To mine ears, vmarks, you sound like a noble pining for the days when nobles were truly free...

BlackGriffen

No one is more hopelessly enslaved than the person who falsely believes he is free.

In their ardent devotion to their paternalistic welfare state, Americans simply ignore the severe immorality of using government coercion for "charity" and "compassion." They also block out of their minds that the velvet glove of their paternalistic welfare state -- which now has the power to take care of them, school them, feed them, provide their health care and retirement, and equalize their wealth, and which purports to protect them from incompetent hairdressers, drug purveyors, and terrorists -- envelopes an iron fist that protects the interests of the welfare state.

[Spliffdaddy]

extremely well said, vmarks!

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by vmarks:
No one is more hopelessly enslaved than the person who falsely believes he is free.

Well said, but...

In their ardent devotion to their paternalistic welfare state, Americans simply ignore the severe immorality of using government coercion for "charity" and "compassion." They also block out of their minds that the velvet glove of their paternalistic welfare state -- which now has the power to take care of them, school them, feed them, provide their health care and retirement, and equalize their wealth, and which purports to protect them from incompetent hairdressers, drug purveyors, and terrorists -- envelopes an iron fist that protects the interests of the welfare state.

You would prefer to be crushed under the heel of the unfettered oligarchs then? Heh.

The saddest part is that you don't realize that nobody is 100% absolutely free to act howsoever they choose. Not to mention that the idea of property is perhaps the biggest restriction of bare freedom of action that there ever was.

So, like I said, you sound like a medieval noble pining away for the day when nobles were truly free, and not shackled down by parliaments et al.

The primary purpose of government is this: to restrain the strong from inflicting their will on the weak. To accomplish this, the government has to be stronger than the strongmen. The trick, though, is that those in government have to be bound to the well being of the weak somehow to prevent them from becoming unfettered oligarchs.

And, yes, maintaining absolute property rights does amount to the haves inflicting their will upon the have-nots to the overall determent of society. Since, though, it is the government that enforces said property rights, the haves enjoy the benefit of government more than the have-nots, thus it seems only natural that they should shoulder more of the load. Especially since they have more ability to shoulder said load than the have-nots.

BlackGrifen

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Then all I ask is this:

Who are corporate donors to Republican candidates?
Who are corporate donors to Democratic candidates?

By how much do the donated amounts differ?

The problem with what you say is they share the blame equally... they certainly do not.

let's talk about organized labor.

Why do the labor unions direct 97% of their political contributions to the DNC?

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
let's talk about organized labor.

Why do the labor unions direct 97% of their political contributions to the DNC?

Sure, let's talk about it. Back up that figure (97%) and tell me how much money it is.

Because it seems to me, labor unions (which are being busted all over) might donate less money than most major corporations to politics. I don't know where such a silly idea comes from, perhaps it has to do with union fees devoted to politics are less than corporation monies devoted to politics

What is the website that you can look at politicians and see who has donated money to them?

Edit: found it: opensecrets.org.

Take a look at party differences

[thunderous_funker]

Well said, BG.

People often forget that the sprawling Fed is the organic and natural reaction to horrific local corruption.

The Big Bad Government didn't rise and seize control, citizens willingly gave it more and more control because they were increasingly powerless against local corruption and economic tyranny.

The idea of some pastoral, egalitarian society in our fabled and foggy past is a total myth. At least for anyone not white, male and landed.

The "liberty" of yesteryear was founded on the genocide of indigenous peoples, the seizure of their land and the considerable economic advantages of slave labor and not paying taxes to England.

Not to single out Americans, for this was the pattern of colonization everywhere.

Seriously. Review history and you'll clearly see that every major power vested to the Federal government is a direct reaction to the need to balance against local tyranny, social and economic.

Has the balance shifted too far? Arguably yes. But the answer is not to simply abolish it. That would merely return us to the days of robber barons and Boss Tweed. Any shift towards more local control must also be coupled with considerable reform and protections to deal with the natural tendency towards oligopoly.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

The saddest part is that you don't realize that nobody is 100% absolutely free to act howsoever they choose. Not to mention that the idea of property is perhaps the biggest restriction of bare freedom of action that there ever was.


SNIP

The primary purpose of government is this: to restrain the strong from inflicting their will on the weak. To accomplish this, the government has to be stronger than the strongmen. The trick, though, is that those in government have to be bound to the well being of the weak somehow to prevent them from becoming unfettered oligarchs.

SNIP

BlackGrifen

Incorrect. The primary purpose of Government is to ensure and secure individual liberty. Liberty and governmental restraint are opposite concepts.

Frederick-Bastiat, phrased it so succinctly, "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

The government's role is to make laws which preserve those rights, not restrain them. That large, powerful, centralized government that you seek just concentrates all that power so that it is available for abuse.

[vmarks]

Whenever the profit incentive is missing, the probability that people's wants can safely be ignored is greatest.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Whenever the profit incentive is missing, the probability that people's wants can safely be ignored is greatest.

Oh brother. That is about the most meaningless bit of claptrap I've heard in a long time.

Is that some bumper sticker you get with the purchase of the Ayn Rand box-set?



Seriously. I know its the path of least resistance to play the "blame it on the Big Bad government" game, but let's not forget why we have the system we have.

Every level of heirarchical authority is an attempt to deal with the problems of a lower level of human society. Groups of people trying to protect their Liberty from infringement. Now we can argue that each time we do that we loose a bit of that Liberty (and I wouldn't necessarily disagree), but its virtually unavoidable without completely reshaping human society as we know it.

Every invasive and detestable power of the Big Bad Government was granted it by popular demand to deal with some form of inequity or injustice. And the Halls of Power became more and more centralized and Federal, the higher and higher the inequity and injustices grew. Towns to balance neighbors, counties to balance towns, states to balance counties, and the Republic to balance states.

Is it the ideal arrangement? I don't know. But I do know enough of the history of this nation to recognize that its an honest and sincere attempt, however flawed.

[OAW]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The idea of some pastoral, egalitarian society in our fabled and foggy past is a total myth. At least for anyone not white, male and landed.

The "liberty" of yesteryear was founded on the genocide of indigenous peoples, the seizure of their land and the considerable economic advantages of slave labor and not paying taxes to England.

Not to single out Americans, for this was the pattern of colonization everywhere.

Indeed.

OAW

[mr. natural]

vmarks:

While there are some nice sentiments in what you propose our "ancestors" *believed* in, there are some huge holes of logic here.

Take the example of (1) it is morally wrong to use government to take money from a person to whom it belongs in order to give it too someone to whom it does not belong.

I guess then that you think it was morally OK for the British government to have taken this land from the native americans and parcel it out in huge tracts to well-heeled powdered wigged dandies?

Almost all the Founding Fathers benefited from this theft of property largesse in one way or another.

The point being, they didn't land here as totally *free* men as you would believe. And the Rube Goldberg Constitution they designed insured that this imbalance of power remained in the hands of these illegitimately privileged dandies.

I'm not saying that your position about what it is to be *free* and that the less government the better is totally wrong, but to tout some patently mythical ideas of the USofA of the past as some idyll of *liberty and freedom* is absurd.

Furthermore, we don't live in the *past,* but the here and now of the 21st century. Things are vastly different and there is no going back. Or at least not until our present form of civilization and government collapses. And when and if this happens, I would expect things to be more like the dark ages than any advancement of great enlightenment as far as *freedom* goes. It would be a very mixed bag depending entirely upon where you lived and how well the people coordinated their lives.

For me, one of the points of this thread is that we are laboring under a woefully antiquated Constitution and it's resulting form of government, which is best exemplified by this misbegotten distinction accorded corporations as "persons." The results of this particular lunacy are clear to anyone who cares to see them for what they are, but just parroting ideals about *freedom* isn't really useful; especially if you'd like to live in land like you imagine the past offered. It just wasn't so if you were poor, a woman, a child even, a person of color or some other race, an indentured servant, and certainly not if you were a native american.

But, if you want to be a Mountain Man of freedom and liberty, go find a corner of the earth where no one will bother you. Send us a post card when you find this place -- I'm sure there will a Post Office nearby.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Oh brother. That is about the most meaningless bit of claptrap I've heard in a long time.

Is that some bumper sticker you get with the purchase of the Ayn Rand box-set?

Basic economics. When someone stands to profit, they listen to the customer. No profit motive, no need to listen to the customer.
But if you want it on a bumper sticker, I'm sure it will go dandy with your Joe Stalin or Marx and Engels box set.

Every invasive and detestable power of the Big Bad Government was granted it by popular demand to deal with some form of inequity or injustice. And the Halls of Power became more and more centralized and Federal, the higher and higher the inequity and injustices grew. Towns to balance neighbors, counties to balance towns, states to balance counties, and the Republic to balance states.

Is it the ideal arrangement? I don't know. But I do know enough of the history of this nation to recognize that its an honest and sincere attempt, however flawed.

Not necessarily. Growth of government and undermining of the Constitution isn't designed to balance smalled injustices. First off, most of the growth of government in the 20th century stemmed from FDR or emulation of his bad practices.

FDR broke every campaign promise he had made and the New Deal was exactly the opposite of what he had promised. FDR had promised "I propose to you that the government, big and little, be made solvent and that the example be set by the President of the United States and his cabinet...Stop the deficits! Stop the deficits!" FDR made a flat promise to "reduce the cost of government operations 25 percent" and called for a sound gold currency (!). Instead, Franklin Deficit Roosevelt engaged in an orgy of spending and implemented the first twelve planks of the Socialist Party platform, which in substance was the New Deal. In his first year he proposed spending 10 billion on 3 billion of revenues; from 1933 to 1936 government expenditures went up more than 83 percent. He closed all banks with no intention or thought of ever re-opening them (banks are not needed in Marxist economics). After two years the New Deal was such a failure through waste, mismanagement and outright graft that FDR had to introduce a "New New Deal."

FDR supporter Merle Thorpe wrote in 1935, "We have given legislative status, either in whole or in part, to eight of the ten points of the Communist Manifesto of 1848; and, as some point out, done (sic) a better job of implementation than Russia." Colonel Sactuary's pamphlet Is the New Deal Communist?made a 35 point comparison of it to Marx's 1848 program.


Every choice made in the New Deal, whether it was one that moved recovery or not, was a choice unerringly true to the essential design of totalitarian government -

To extend the power of executive government, to rule by decrees and rules and regulations of its own making; between 1933 and 1943 FDR issued 3,556 Executive orders

To strengthen its hold on the economic life of the nation;

To extend power over the individual - the domestication of individuality;

To degrade the parliamentary principle;

To impair the independent Constitutional judicial power;

To weaken all other powers - private enterprise and finance, state and local government.

The curse of big government is far worse than any cure it gives.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Basic economics. When someone stands to profit, they listen to the customer. No profit motive, no need to listen to the customer.
But if you want it on a bumper sticker, I'm sure it will go dandy with your Joe Stalin or Marx and Engels box set.

You argue that every human interaction is economic but I'm the Marxist??

Trade (and human interaction) is founded on mutual benefit, not profit. That is basic economics.

Originally posted by vmarks:
blah blah blah.....FDR was a dirty commie....blah blah blah

The curse of big government is far worse than any cure it gives.

The State exists to protect property. Period.

Every form of government is merely a matter of compromise to achieve a balance of interests between those who require the state to protect their property and the remainder who demand some modicum of justice.

Those who scream the loudest for a return to "natural forces" of competition are the ones most insulated by the State from the brutality of those "natural forces".

[vmarks]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


You argue that every human interaction is economic but I'm the Marxist??

Trade (and human interaction) is founded on mutual benefit, not profit. That is basic economics.

What is profit if not the benefit? And, doesn't government interference in that interaction change the relationship from one of mutual benefit to one of coercion?

The State exists to protect property. Period.

Every form of government is merely a matter of compromise to achieve a balance of interests between those who require the state to protect their property and the remainder who demand some modicum of justice.

Those who scream the loudest for a return to "natural forces" of competition are the ones most insulated by the State from the brutality of those "natural forces".

Now you're just saying, "The government knows what's best for you." I'm sorry, but that doesn't suffice. The state existing to protect property, by taking it from its owners (civil forfeiture, taxation that isn't compliant with the Constitution, and more...) is an absurd argument.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Now you're just saying, "The government knows what's best for you." I'm sorry, but that doesn't suffice. The state existing to protect property, by taking it from its owners (civil forfeiture, taxation that isn't compliant with the Constitution, and more...) is an absurd argument.

I hate to inform you of this, but the government isn't run by shiny titanium robots, but (make sure you're sitting down) by humans like you and me! No joke!

And, get this, the government's role isn't just to tax people, it actually provides services like education and defense! I know, I couldn't believe it either!

vmarks, you sound like a lot of libertarians I've heard before. My question is always this:

"In your private enterprise world, who builds the roads?"

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Incorrect. The primary purpose of Government is to ensure and secure individual liberty. Liberty and governmental restraint are opposite concepts.

Frederick-Bastiat, phrased it so succinctly, "Life,

Check, it is a fact that we are alive.

liberty,

Also, check, it is a fact that our wills lead to correlated actions.

and property do not exist because men have made laws.

BZZZZZZT! Wrong.
Thank you for playing.

There is nothing innate about property. It's a fantasy, a state of mind(s). As such, it is subject to evaluation of its benefits versus it's harms, and is valid to the extent that it maximizes the net benefit.

Property exists because people want it to exist. It has persisted to exist because, on the balance, it is beneficial for it to be so.

It is not sacrosanct, though.

On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

Does this guy honestly believe that property exists independent of the existence of man? Heh, that's funny. Property is nothing more than an extension of the territorial instincts of animals. Why do animals stake out territory? When resources are scarce, one's ability to survive depends upon one's ability to exclude competitors from said resource.

So don't come at me like it's some sacred principle. It's a survival tactic, plain and simple.

The government's role is to make laws which preserve those rights, not restrain them. That large, powerful, centralized government that you seek just concentrates all that power so that it is available for abuse.

Nope. The government's role, like property's, is to benefit and protect society. To some extent, that requires protecting property (infringing on liberty), life (also infringing on liberty), and the overall liberty (infringing on a person's freedom to infringe on the freedom of another). What it ends up boiling down to, is the government is there to stop the people who can take turf by force, kill, and coerce from exercising their ability to do so.

The fact is that when you remove government completely, you don't get full liberty out of anarchy, you get feudalism as the strong prey upon the weak. Thus government's role is, obviously, to prevent that course of events from occurring. In other words, the governments role is to restrain the free action of the strong (and unscrupulous - not all of the strong are bad) in order to increase the freedom of action of the weak.

True freedom is only attainable when one removes oneself from other human beings entirely. That's not really very possible anymore, so we're left with the above situation.

BlackGriffen

[mr. natural]

It seems clear to me that vmarks has a powerful dislike of FDR. That's fine. But it changes nothing. If he wants to start a bash FDR thread, please go ahead. But he misses entirely, as do most folks, the underpinnings of what FDR had to work with, i.e., a Rube Goldberg contraption of a Constitutional form of government that is totally at odds with itself and and the very people it's supposed to serve in order to, among other things, "establish justice" and "promote the general welfare."

We can and have been arguing about just what these things mean for 200+ years, and we are really no better off for it. Meanwhile, there are other nations whose Constitutions arrange their governments to actually serve the wishes of the people and lead them in a straight forward and fairly efficient manner. Although it wouldn't surprise me if vmarks sees all these advancements as just further evidence of paternalistic welfare states of servitude. He seems to pine for some never never land of an anarchist form of governance. May I suggest Italy.

Anyway, vmarks also seems to labor under another antiquated idea that "Basic Economics" amounts to the friendly grocery store owner who listens to the complaints of the his shoppers about his produce rotting on the shelves. Here again, I'm afraid he is living in some time warped TV episode of Leave It To Beaver where *Father Knew Best* and if the washing machine is a complete lemon all one has to do is take it back to the local guy who built the thing.

Indeed, what a nice world it once was.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
It seems clear to me that vmarks has a powerful dislike of FDR. That's fine. But it changes nothing. If he wants to start a bash FDR thread, please go ahead. But he misses entirely, as do most folks, the underpinnings of what FDR had to work with, i.e., a Rube Goldberg contraption of a Constitutional form of government that is totally at odds with itself and and the very people it's supposed to serve in order to, among other things, "establish justice" and "promote the general welfare."

We can and have been arguing about just what these things mean for 200+ years, and we are really no better off for it. Meanwhile, there are other nations whose Constitutions arrange their governments to actually serve the wishes of the people and lead them in a straight forward and fairly efficient manner. Although it wouldn't surprise me if vmarks sees all these advancements as just further evidence of paternalistic welfare states of servitude. He seems to pine for some never never land of an anarchist form of governance. May I suggest Italy.

Anyway, vmarks also seems to labor under another antiquated idea that "Basic Economics" amounts to the friendly grocery store owner who listens to the complaints of the his shoppers about his produce rotting on the shelves. Here again, I'm afraid he is living in some time warped TV episode of Leave It To Beaver where *Father Knew Best* and if the washing machine is a complete lemon all one has to do is take it back to the local guy who built the thing.

Indeed, what a nice world it once was.

Wait wait- you're the one telling me to leave America, and yet you're the same one claiming other governments do so much better? BRILLIANT!

[vmarks]

Originally posted by petehammer:
I hate to inform you of this, but the government isn't run by shiny titanium robots, but (make sure you're sitting down) by humans like you and me! No joke!

And, get this, the government's role isn't just to tax people, it actually provides services like education and defense! I know, I couldn't believe it either!

vmarks, you sound like a lot of libertarians I've heard before. My question is always this:

"In your private enterprise world, who builds the roads?"

The Federal Government is limited to spending on a very few things.

Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;


To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;


To establish post offices and post roads;


To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;


To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;


To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;


To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;


To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And


To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Not education, not welfare. Not drug education, not communications regulation, not a hundred of the things they spend on today.

Post roads are constitutional.

ONLY these are the things that the Federal Government is allowed to tax for. Everything else is disallowed to them, and left to the States.

The importance of following the Constitution is clear: if the rules change willy-nilly, whenever we don't want to follow them anymore, then there may as well be no rules. My two pair beats your full house, because hey, it's just more -fair- that way .

[mr. natural]

Posted by vmarks:

What is profit if not the benefit? And, doesn't government interference in that interaction change the relationship from one of mutual benefit to one of coercion?

Oh man, what a joke this is. It depends entirely upon how one defines "profit."

Now a daze "profit" more often than not purely means $$$$$$, and often has little to with "benefit," as in uplifting or improving people's lives. If you are that unawares of the many instances of the *profit* motive not *benefiting* our lives as you seem to suggest here, I really don't know what to say to you.

This is where it is entirely proper and necessary for government to *interfere* in order to promote the "general welfare" and "establish justice" among the citizenry.

Sheesh! What strange world are you living in anyway?

And no, I'm not "telling you to leave America," I just think you're not seeing things as they are in the light of day today!

[OAW]

"Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; ...."

I suppose that part just went right over your head. "General welfare" is a pretty ambiguous and open-ended term. And ultimately, it means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Despite many attempts, has the Supreme Court ever said that such spending by the federal government is unconstitutional? If not, then that ought to tell you something.

OAW