What is the Goal?
1. Is the goal to make everyone equal?
2. Or, is the goal to make everyone play by the same rules?
.
I don't think 1. is possible, but 2. sounds like a worthy goal.
Who among us can make such a thing as "everyone plays by the same
rules" a reality?
.
I think some may answer the government. But our government is an
elected body, and to get elected they need the backing of rich people.
And the rich people will only give them money to get elected if in return
they get something in return from the politicians; like unfair advantages.
Can this cycle be stopped??
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the Goal?
1. Is the goal to make everyone equal?
2. Or, is the goal to make everyone play by the same rules?
.
I don't think 1. is possible, but 2. sounds like a worthy goal.
Maybe there is a crucial distinction here that people who regularly go on and on about the importance of 1. often miss when describing their position.
What is the Goal?
Nothing more or less than this:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
My emphasis, regarding the discussion at hand.
For the record, you are correct Aux, they did write "establish Justice" first.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
My emphasis, regarding the original topic.
Obviously these protests are disrupting the domestic tranquility of the nation, thus we should use all force in stopping them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.My emphasis, regarding the original topic.
Obviously these protests are disrupting the domestic tranquility of the nation, thus we should use all force in stopping them.
What interferes with domestic tranquility more:
1. Civil disobedience, or
2. Economic catastrophe and the laws that allow it to happen?
What is the Goal?
1. Is the goal to make everyone equal?
2. Or, is the goal to make everyone play by the same rules?
.
I don't think 1. is possible, but 2. sound like a worthy goal.
Who among us can make such a thing as "everyone plays by the same
rules" a reality?Let's start there. And then walk over to their house and see if they're home, and willing to play.
The goal is to keep things from getting so unbalanced that most people are living in abject poverty and misery, while a tiny handful have every luxury. If you can stay above that you can usually keep the rabble from revolting.
I'd actually be more ambitious than that and say that everyone should have work to do that compensates them well enough and leaves them enough leisure time to pursue hobbies, take care of their families and generally enjoy life. They should also have the opportunity to retire and not have to worry about spending their last years in poverty or as a burden to their children. Medical care should be available.
I have no problem with some, through work, talent or luck, having more than others, only when that wealth becomes power to warp the system to it's advantage is it a problem.Having "everyone play by the same rules", does not guarantee an acceptable outcome. To simplify, if the rules are "winner takes all" I can't accept that even if every one has the same chance of winning.
Or to put it far better than I ever could:
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
So, at first glance you seem to lean towards the goal of 2. everyone
play by the same rules as long as the rules are balanced. You pointout "the rules" have to be fair and equitable, and you would not want
to see a winner take all system.
That makes sense to me, because I don't think a winner take all system
would be stable in the long run.
So, what should a GOOD set of rules be?
.
I feel that even if everyone plays by the same rules there will still
be imbalances between individuals; and this is because of differences
in ability, desires, and just plain lucky draws. That is ok.
.
At this point, I don't know what a good "set of rules" will be, but I
have to wonder who gets to decide. And why do those people get to
decide the rules over other people?
What should the rules be for deciding who gets to make the rules??
A qualified option 2:
Everyone plays by the same rules, and there is a minimal standard of living that is guaranteed by the State.
As for who makes the rules, congress exclusively, with our permission.
As for who makes the rules, congress exclusively, with our permission.
They still have to be elected first, right?
And it takes money to get elected. So the rich can still buy a
congressman or congresswoman (maybe it's far fetched, but still it seems
possible) and secure unfair advantages over others.
.
At this point, it seems to me the only rule is "money rules".
Also, I personally can't even imagine any other way to go about living.
Looking at other systems from history like Communism, there still
existed black markets, and bribery was common place. To me this supports
the "rule" that individual wealth can be used to gain advantages over
others.
Even when I think of other hybrid commerce-systems I'm over whelmed by
the empirical evidence of their success -- they no longer exist.
.
As for who makes the rules, congress exclusively, with our permission.
-I don't recall them asking me.
-They don't seem to care what the people think. Its far easier to suck up to a corporation, get oodles of money, buy campaign ads to get the people into the voting both rather than listening to them or even governing to their benefit. Its all about appearance, reality doesn't matter at all.
As for who makes the rules, congress exclusively, with our permission.
-I don't recall them asking me.
Well you only get your one vote.
-They don't seem to care what the people think. Its far easier to suck up to a corporation, get oodles of money, buy campaign ads to get the people into the voting both rather than listening to them or even governing to their benefit. Its all about appearance, reality doesn't matter at all.
I agree with your point, and think it lends weight to the idea the only
rule is "money rules."So where am I going with this? I think maybe everyone should learn how
to make money, create commerce, grow the economy; instead of waiting
for someone else to create a job for them.
Yay. I think the solution path is down the road of self-actualization.
One can't be passive, or you'll get used.
.
Well you only get your one vote.
... which they're not obligated to listen too. Even if I AM in the majority, i vote for someone because they said they will do X. Once they're in office however, they do Y instead. Case in point, one of the big differences between Obama and hillary in the primary was that Obama did not support the individual mandate on healthcare. He gets into office... and passes an individual mandate because the insurance companies pressure legislatures to do it or be funded out of existence.
My vote is meaningless because it doesn't correlate with their actions. The person has become the entire focal point of the voting process, the action (which is supposed to be the point) has become irrelevant (if it ever was relevant).
So where am I going with this? I think maybe everyone should learn how
to make money, create commerce, grow the economy; instead of waiting
for someone else to create a job for them.
HOW?
Not everyone can make money farming: not everyone has land
An individual cannot compete with a far cheaper and more efficient factory for the production of goods
Not everyone can make money by moving money around the way wallstreet does. First of all, not everyone has the money to move around, second that system is a negative sum game: it isn't making any money, its moving it around and they're skimming off the top.
|
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.My emphasis, regarding the original topic.
Obviously these protests are disrupting the domestic tranquility of the nation, thus we should use all force in stopping them.
Anyone can play around with emphasis and quotes. Just look, I found something that says that the government should secure liberty for ourselves and our children, and also to establish justice which many argues is not being served.
Now, I'm no big city mathematician, but it seems to me that the people, justice, and liberty count as a little more than little old singular domestic tranquility. Two out of three ain't bad.
Blah blah blah.
Now, I also see the word constitution in there, and round these parts that's another word for... <gets dragged off by THEM>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I was composing a reply on the flat tax part, then I hit that and threw it away. It just isn't worth the effort.Of course liberals wouldn't touch that with a 10ft pole, they would lose all their slaves and indentured voters....and there goes any pretense of objectivity (or productive discussion). That didn't take long.
+1.
Aux sounds like a rabid libertarian, so it's quite pointless.
Libertarism has a lot in common with hardcore communism: both relies on false assumptions about the human nature. The later, that people would be happy to share almost everything and work toward the common good (not quite!), the former that in a regulation-free environment, people would be too respectful of each other rights to take undue advantage (you bet!). Liberty for the foxes in the henhouse!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unemployed people are bad. A smart government will take ANY step to reduce unemployment. War is better than unemployment. Unemployment causes social unrest. Social unrest is bad. It is bad for business. The business of america is no longer business, thus unemployment does not worry multi-nationals. The US no longer has enough unskilled labor that pays a living wage. It did.
-People arguing about politics are missing a fundamental shift. The US economy was aided by post WW2 rebuilding. The US is and will be a strong economy in the world, but it is not a society that can handle high unemployment that a socialist european country could handle.
-There is no easy answer or remedy to this situation. The IT industry can not absorb the few million manufacturing jobs lost. Working at walmart pays little more than minimum wage. The new 'opportunities' will go mostly to those upper middle class families that can afford ivy league education
-Case in point. Unpaid internships. This is a poor tax, and nothing more. Only students with private means can accept an unpaid position. Yet companies love these things. In the indentured servant system, at least you got food and board in return for learning the craft.
-Serious economic shifts are taking place in the world. It is foolish to blame bankers, politicians, china, or mexicans alone. The smart thing for a president to do would be focus on 'making people feel better.' FDR and Regean made people feel better. The emotional crisis is as dangerous as the economic crisis. Fathers will become drunks, and mothers become strippers, children drop out of school. The cycle of poverty is difficult to escape under the best of times. The US can not afford to have a massive, high reproducing, uneducated unemployed class. No country can. No country has.
-Case in point. Unpaid internships. This is a poor tax, and nothing more. Only students with private means can accept an unpaid position. Yet companies love these things. In the indentured servant system, at least you got food and board in return for learning the craft.
Interesting point. Anybody have this experience or feel this way?
-Case in point. Unpaid internships. This is a poor tax, and nothing more. Only students with private means can accept an unpaid position. Yet companies love these things. In the indentured servant system, at least you got food and board in return for learning the craft.Interesting point. Anybody have this experience or feel this way?
Yes. I know a couple people who had to do unpaid internships to graduate. My college had buisnesses sponcer projects. The buisness pays the college ~2K, gets 1-4 students working full time for a couple months with a proffessor as an advisor on a project. Students need to do one to graduate (not all are sponcered by companies, but at least half are). So here are 4 students paying to do work for a company, who gets any IP discovered out of it.
Similarly, my cousin had to do an internship working at a company but could not recieve pay for it because of the school rules. She could not get pay for something she recieved credit for.
|
Unemployed people are bad. A smart government will take ANY step to reduce unemployment. War is better than unemployment. Unemployment causes social unrest. Social unrest is bad. It is bad for business. The business of america is no longer business, thus unemployment does not worry multi-nationals. The US no longer has enough unskilled labor that pays a living wage. It did.
-People arguing about politics are missing a fundamental shift. The US economy was aided by post WW2 rebuilding. The US is and will be a strong economy in the world, but it is not a society that can handle high unemployment that a socialist european country could handle.
-There is no easy answer or remedy to this situation. The IT industry can not absorb the few million manufacturing jobs lost. Working at walmart pays little more than minimum wage. The new 'opportunities' will go mostly to those upper middle class families that can afford ivy league education
-Case in point. Unpaid internships. This is a poor tax, and nothing more. Only students with private means can accept an unpaid position. Yet companies love these things. In the indentured servant system, at least you got food and board in return for learning the craft.
-Serious economic shifts are taking place in the world. It is foolish to blame bankers, politicians, china, or mexicans alone. The smart thing for a president to do would be focus on 'making people feel better.' FDR and Regean made people feel better. The emotional crisis is as dangerous as the economic crisis. Fathers will become drunks, and mothers become strippers, children drop out of school. The cycle of poverty is difficult to escape under the best of times. The US can not afford to have a massive, high reproducing, uneducated unemployed class. No country can. No country has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour
Now he was writing about 19th century Britain, but if you dig around there are lots of reasons why unemployment is good for capital.
Too much unemployment and you start to get crisis of overaccumulation though.
Whether or not that is good for society is its own normative discussion
I'm sure Comrade Anklebiter can explain it better.
-Case in point. Unpaid internships. This is a poor tax, and nothing more. Only students with private means can accept an unpaid position. Yet companies love these things. In the indentured servant system, at least you got food and board in return for learning the craft.Interesting point. Anybody have this experience or feel this way?
Unpaid would have been an improvement when I did my student teaching. Not only did I not get paid, but I had to PAY for 12 hours of course work, which involved me doing the 25%-50% of the work for a fully paid teacher for a good portion of a semester. Also, we were instructed not to have jobs outside of student teaching.
Let's just say that the majority of my student loans weren't taken until I actually got into the teaching courses.
He's not a big fan of personal freedom either (specifically the right to choose who to assemble with).
This is a very skewed representation of my position regarding "Right to Work" laws, Citizen Duck.
stuff
No, I wasn't trying to hide anything.
I also disagree with your assessment of the consequences of an American revolution.
But, I doubt rational conversation with you is possible if you're going to accuse me of being in favor of things I've never said.
Have a nice day!
But, I doubt rational conversation with you is possible if you're going to accuse me of being in favor of things I've never said.
There's a lot of that going on around here lately. Then again, listening takes so darn long...
What is the Goal?Nothing more or less than this:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.My emphasis, regarding the discussion at hand.
For the record, you are correct Aux, they did write "establish Justice" first.
Note that it says promote not provide.
|
Yeah, I was composing a reply on the flat tax part, then I hit that and threw it away. It just isn't worth the effort.Of course liberals wouldn't touch that with a 10ft pole, they would lose all their slaves and indentured voters....and there goes any pretense of objectivity (or productive discussion). That didn't take long.
Yeah, when we start seeing blanket derogatory statements like "liberals this" or "conservatives that" or "Democrats this" or "Republicans that" then we're better off ignoring the person.
The challenge is that we don't want too much of our lives under the control of a small group of people who just might not care what happens to us. It doesn't matter if it's CEOs or commisars or cardinals or senators or some shadowy eldritch cabal or whatever, it's bad, and it's bad for a few reasons. First, by centralizing the decision making into fewer individuals, the total sum of possible solutions will be reduced, and it's much more possible that the best solution will not be thought of. Second, if there is a mismatch in alignment of motives between the decision makers and the people who carry it out, there will be economic losses resulting from just trying to keep things together.
All in all, a world in which there is a small, powerful elite will have, overall, worse economic and general-welfare output than one with a broader and thinner power distribution. The few lucky elite might get a better world in the former case, but only in the short run as its human resources are bled dry. Of course, since that short run might last an elite's lifetime, arguments to the short run vs. long run are immaterial in getting an elite to change minds.
If OWS is going to have any success, the action needs to involve even more people, and it will need more organization. How much shouting does it take to stop a banker from banking? Wrong question. Ultimately, it's all about products, trust, our willingness to work together, our ability to make what we need and desire, and match our needs and wants to our ability to produce.
Note that it says promote not provide.What is the Goal?Nothing more or less than this:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.My emphasis, regarding the discussion at hand.
For the record, you are correct Aux, they did write "establish Justice" first.
Thank you, you are correct. Promote means provide AND forward as an idea. Synonyms being sponsor, subsidize, encourage, advance.
Who do you imagine is going to provide for the general welfare if not the government? The private sector? Laughable. Privatizing social security, unemployment, etc. would subject it to the same practices that the mortgage-backed securities were subject to--high-risk-no-consequences speculation. Goodbye social security, straight into the hands of the ultra wealthy.
This isn't directed at you personally, but I wish in general people would stop reposting the preamble with their boldfaced strawmen. I bolded "welfare" because it's the part people like to pretend isn't there, as this and many other discussions prove. No one ever argues that defense, for instance, isn't part of the role of government. The preamble is all of what it says, not any one thing.
As for who makes the rules, congress exclusively, with our permission.
With our permisson. Meaning two things:
1. We elect them.
2. We have the right to protest, recall and revolt.
-Case in point. Unpaid internships. This is a poor tax, and nothing more. Only students with private means can accept an unpaid position. Yet companies love these things. In the indentured servant system, at least you got food and board in return for learning the craft.Interesting point. Anybody have this experience or feel this way?Unpaid would have been an improvement when I did my student teaching. Not only did I not get paid, but I had to PAY for 12 hours of course work, which involved me doing the 25%-50% of the work for a fully paid teacher for a good portion of a semester. Also, we were instructed not to have jobs outside of student teaching.
Let's just say that the majority of my student loans weren't taken until I actually got into the teaching courses.
this really grinds my gears. Making someone pay in order to work? And you can't have worn outside of this "labor"? Appalling.
this really grinds my gears. Making someone pay in order to work? And you can't have work outside of this "labor"? Appalling.
Yeah, but it's all worth it once that fat teacher salary starts rolling in... ;)
this really grinds my gears. Making someone pay in order to work? And you can't have work outside of this "labor"? Appalling.Yeah, but it's all worth it once that fat teacher salary starts rolling in... ;)
If by fat teacher's salary, you mean one of the lowest average pays for that level of education, your right :)
Thank you, you are correct. Promote means provide AND forward as an idea. Synonyms being sponsor, subsidize, encourage, advance.
Who do you imagine is going to provide for the general welfare if not the government? The private sector? Laughable. Privatizing social security, unemployment, etc. would subject it to the same practices that the mortgage-backed securities were subject to--high-risk-no-consequences speculation. Goodbye social security, straight into the hands of the ultra wealthy.
This isn't directed at you personally, but I wish in general people would stop reposting the preamble with their boldfaced strawmen. I bolded "welfare" because it's the part people like to pretend isn't there, as this and many other discussions prove. No one ever argues that defense, for instance, isn't part of the role of government. The preamble is all of what it says, not any one thing.
I didn't take it personally, and I've seen people actually change the word to "provide" in discussions and hope people don't notice.
I think the authors of the preamble chose their words carefully. If they wanted to say provide, and all that it entails, they would have bloody well used that word.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you, you are correct. Promote means provide AND forward as an idea. Synonyms being sponsor, subsidize, encourage, advance.
Who do you imagine is going to provide for the general welfare if not the government? The private sector? Laughable. Privatizing social security, unemployment, etc. would subject it to the same practices that the mortgage-backed securities were subject to--high-risk-no-consequences speculation. Goodbye social security, straight into the hands of the ultra wealthy.
This isn't directed at you personally, but I wish in general people would stop reposting the preamble with their boldfaced strawmen. I bolded "welfare" because it's the part people like to pretend isn't there, as this and many other discussions prove. No one ever argues that defense, for instance, isn't part of the role of government. The preamble is all of what it says, not any one thing.
I didn't take it personally, and I've seen people actually change the word to "provide" in discussions and hope people don't notice.
I think the authors of the preamble chose their words carefully. If they wanted to say provide, and all that it entails, they would have bloody well used that word.
On the other hand, they lived in the eighteenth century, at a time where the United States were few in number and basically still an agrarian society, and had no crystal ball to see the future. So second guessing them more than two hundreds years later on problems that they had no clue would or could ever happen, such as redistribution of wealth in a post industrial world,is quite a moot point.
The founding fathers weren't gods with precogntive powers. The constitution they drew isn't an holy text. Whatever it says, it can evolve.
Thank you, you are correct. Promote means provide AND forward as an idea. Synonyms being sponsor, subsidize, encourage, advance.
Who do you imagine is going to provide for the general welfare if not the government? The private sector? Laughable. Privatizing social security, unemployment, etc. would subject it to the same practices that the mortgage-backed securities were subject to--high-risk-no-consequences speculation. Goodbye social security, straight into the hands of the ultra wealthy.
This isn't directed at you personally, but I wish in general people would stop reposting the preamble with their boldfaced strawmen. I bolded "welfare" because it's the part people like to pretend isn't there, as this and many other discussions prove. No one ever argues that defense, for instance, isn't part of the role of government. The preamble is all of what it says, not any one thing.
I didn't take it personally, and I've seen people actually change the word to "provide" in discussions and hope people don't notice.
I think the authors of the preamble chose their words carefully. If they wanted to say provide, and all that it entails, they would have bloody well used that word.
On the other hand, they lived in the eighteenth century, at a time where the United States were few in number and basically still an agrarian society, and had no crystal ball to see the future. So second guessing them more than two hundreds years later on problems that they had no clue would or could ever happen, such as redistribution of wealth in a post industrial world,is quite a moot point.
The founding fathers weren't gods with precogntive powers. The constitution they drew isn't an holy text. Whatever it says, it can evolve.
Intentions do not evolve, or change with the times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intentions do not evolve, or change with the times.
-"The founders intent" is a mythical non entity. They disagreed with each other at least as much as republicans and democrats disagree with each other today.
|
Intentions do not evolve, or change with the times.-"The founders intent" is a mythical non entity. They disagreed with each other at least as much as republicans and democrats disagree with each other today.
BS. There was intent, if you want to go beyond the Constitution you can look to their letters to find it.
And speaking of mythical, nowhere in the Constitution is there an argument to support redistribution of wealth. There are however quite a few letters/statements written by the Founders to the support the opposite.
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
I also restored Kryzbyn's quote within yours for sake of clarity.
Carry on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BS. There was intent
No.
There were intentS. The constitution was designed by comitee, not a decree from on high. Different founders thought it meant different things and that's clear from the day they started governing. Madison & Jefferson thought what wasn't specifically allowed was prohibited. Hamilton thought what wasn't specifically prohibited was allowed. THAT argument started the second Washington left office.
And speaking of mythical, nowhere in the Constitution is there an argument to support redistribution of wealth. There are however quite a few letters/statements written by the Founders to the support the opposite.
And you're telling me this because....?
|
I have read through some but not all so if I go over something that has been touched on I am sorry ahead.
So, what is rich? I think micheal moore is rich because he has more money than me. how about the reporters on any of these news stations?would any of these people give you ANY MONEY IF YOU ASKED THEM.NOOOOOO. They won't. It makes me angry that they are help pushing this agenda and are not living like the rest of us 99%.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intentions do not evolve, or change with the times.-"The founders intent" is a mythical non entity. They disagreed with each other at least as much as republicans and democrats disagree with each other today.BS. There was intent, if you want to go beyond the Constitution you can look to their letters to find it.
And speaking of mythical, nowhere in the Constitution is there an argument to support redistribution of wealth. There are however quite a few letters/statements written by the Founders to the support the opposite.
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.""Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."I also restored Kryzbyn's quote within yours for sake of clarity.
Carry on.
Hi. No disrespect intended, but you DO seem to have an almost religious approach to constitutional matters, as if the US constitution was an holy text and the founding fathers its apostles.
That can be understood regarding political institutions, as the Us constitution did a good job crafting them (checks and balances, and all that).
But it's completely irrelevant ragarding economical matters, which are closely related to societal context.
To be blunt, the founding fathers werent't wizards, just guys who led an armed revolution <wink, wink> which happened to be successful, and had to organize a country from what was at the time thirteen underpopulated, unnderdeveloped and mostly agrarian colonies.
Of course, they didn't spoke about redistribution of wealth, ,or progressive taxes; I bet they didn't envision Internet or air traffic too. They lived two centuries ago, and had absolutely no clue about the economical woes of an post-industrial society, because no such thing existed at the time.
Delving into their letters, which are adressing eighteenth centuries matters, to find answers to 21st century economical problems is pointless. Like trying to build your Internet site architecture from a steam boiler plans.
You shouldn't care if they 'promoted' or 'provided' welfare, and if they spoke of that first or last in the preamble because they weren't thinking of the modern acception of the word welfare , which is a modern (in your case, post WW2) invention.
On the same topic, when they wrote about the right of citizens to bear arms, I guess they were mostly thinking about citizens keeping muskets at hand to repulse a possible english invasion from Canada, and could not have envisioned that two centuries later automatic rifles would have more firepower that a whole squad of musket wielding minutemen.
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.""Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Whoa, hold on there, those wouldn't be armed revolutionaries that you're so favorably quoting, would they? Ones who confiscated Crown and Loyalist property? Who continued the practice of seizing and redistributing Amerindian wealth? And they didn't quite so successfully guarantee dark-skinned Americans the free exercise of their industry nor the fruits thereby acquired, did they?
Damned deist Jacobins...I'm surprised they didn't ban role-playing games...
Whoa, hold on there, those wouldn't be armed revolutionaries that you're so favorably quoting, would they? Ones who confiscated Crown and Loyalist property? Who continued the practice of seizing and redistributing Amerindian wealth? And they didn't quite so successfully guarantee dark-skinned Americans the free exercise of their industry nor the fruits thereby acquired, did they?
Damned deist Jacobins...I'm surprised they didn't ban role-playing games...
They did, in a sense. I bet my lucky twenty-sider that none of their letters mentioned roleplaying games, or edicted a proper alignment etiquette.
So, it's banned (using the same reasoning used by Auxie about redistribution of wealth).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if Jefferson were alive today, his response to the OWS crowd would be "Ok, you tried, time to water that tree of liberty now."
Don't forget that the Boston tea party was a criminal act against a state run, sponsored, and influential multinational corporation that effectively controlled the British government- essentially the very thing that ows is protesting. It wasn't an act against the british government, it was an act against government backed business that was interfering with mom and pop importing and smuggling.
The tea act was NOT a tax on tea. It was an act allowing the Dutch east India company to ship tea sitting in its warehouse in England to America without paying a tax on it. Americans would have gotten high quality tea at lower prices, and flagging the dutch East India company would have made tons of moola.
Guess what company most of Parliment owned stock in?
|
|
I think if Jefferson were alive today, his response to the OWS crowd would be "Ok, you tried, time to water that tree of liberty now."
Well that would require patriots - which you/they are not, or the blood of tyrants - which don't exist beyond what you have created in your mind as bogymen or by paying their wages and giving them power directly or via proxy.
There is a difference between trying to fix the problems in this country and changing it into a society which is alien to its original concept.
Whoa, hold on there, those wouldn't be armed revolutionaries that you're so favorably quoting, would they? Ones who confiscated Crown and Loyalist property? Who continued the practice of seizing and redistributing Amerindian wealth? And they didn't quite so successfully guarantee dark-skinned Americans the free exercise of their industry nor the fruits thereby acquired, did they?
I would say that the goods at that point (most of them) belonged to them, as in they produced their own goods as a society by that point. Some things were forced upon them which they soundly rejected.
As far as the taking of Native American resources/wealth, well that is something that is an ugly scar on the history of this country. All things considered it was what it was. Lands are conquered and people die, wasn't the first time nor will it be the last. I chalk that up more to human nature than an Imperialist genocidal agenda.
--------
You want to change the mercantile/commerce laws of the land you don't stand outside the store of the most successful business and scream for a handout. Go to the politicians and pressure them to make the change you want (tea party style). Wall Street isn't going to change s@&*, they get their rules of the game and how to play up on high, so go to DC. Go to the top.
Oh no, they won't do that because guess who's in power in DC - the logo president. Their guy.
Going to DC would just make him look bad and would defeat the point of this astroturf movement, which is to just get him re-elected. Where's all the rage at the logo-POTUS? Nancy Pelosi is supporting this movement - is she part of the 99%? Where is all the criticism towards the Dems in power or the POTUS?
Fake-ass movement drawing a bunch of suckers who are either A) down on their luck (genuine) or B) Leftist who want permanent left control (the fake Fox News comrade guy - a Daily KOS journalist) or C) Have always been waiting in the wings for a chance to topple capitalism (International ANSWER, World workers, CPUSA, etc) and are taking peoples bad situations and frustration and exploiting it for their cause.
My guess though (and based on what I have seen) is that the biggest culprit/mover here is group B. The ones providing the funds and direction.
If they march on DC and start giving the POTUS a very hard time (he is in charge, isn't he) on a daily basis and actually make the Dems in power afraid then I will revise my view of what is going on. Otherwise this is just a Dem ploy to counter the successful Tea Party movement with their own via proxy front groups. Didn't take long to see that this wasn't a true grassroots movement.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well that would require patriots - which you/they are not
How DARE you.
How dare you assume that the mantle of someone that loves their country only applies to the people who make our country is synonymous with people willing to put up with the current levels of corporate control over our government. How on EARTH do you go from "We'd like OUR government out of hands of a tiny minority of influential individuals" to "I hate america". Our country was founded in a bloody war against that sort of economic manipulation. We were tired of being a third world country that had our laws and government exist for the sole purpose of making a few wig wearing elite in Britain rich.
I don't know what you think America IS to make it synonymous with a medium for corporations to dictate our policy but its not America. America is its land and its people, both of which are being ill served by the short sighted for profit machinations of a small group of people who are getting obscenely wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
I think Government should by the people for the people, not by the elite for the elite.
There is a difference between trying to fix the problems in this country and changing it into a society which is alien to its original concept.
Right, so what we have now, a world spanning empire that dictates policy through the use of economic and military force, is what the founders envisioned? The founders wanted us invading foreign countries and taking their stuff? That was the plan?
I would say that the goods at that point (most of them) belonged to them, as in they produced their own goods as a society by that point. Some things were forced upon them which they soundly rejected.
If people don't want high quality low price indian tea because it was shipped in via a megacorp why not let the free market decide that?
The goods did NOT belong to the people throwing the tea party. They were the rightful and legal property of the dutch east india company until it was sold to retailers.
I would say that the goods at that point (most of them) belonged to them, as in they produced their own goods as a society by that point. Some things were forced upon them which they soundly rejected.If people don't want high quality low price indian tea because it was shipped in via a megacorp why not let the free market decide that?
The goods did NOT belong to the people throwing the tea party. They were the rightful and legal property of the dutch east india company until it was sold to retailers.
Don't bother, he's a troll.
He sticks to the belief that his omniscient founding fathers totems would OF COURSE agree with his vision of your country, and won't budge from that. All others must be bad americans (or worse, commie foreigners).
Was the whole founding fathers line started because someone who supported the movement tried to bring in some phrase from the constitution. It seems strange now that others on that side, even perhaps the very same individual are now acting as if discussing the founding fathers is silly.
As for patriotism, I'm very confident that the current protests are just as much patriotic to the current US as those founding fathers were to united kingdom at their time.
One thing I do find interesting in the current protests, is they seem to have a very much "the majority has a right to have its will done" attitude (everything needs to be decided by consensus, see not allow civil rights leader and democratic congressman speak). Doesn't that strike anyone as particularly troubling. Where is the discussion of protection of the minority in all this.
-The tea party and OWS are identical in that they are angry people. Angry because the US is not working. It does not take a great mind to see that America is not, internationally or economically, what it WAS. Nobody has denied that adjusted for inflation, wages are flat or even worse than 30 years ago. No one says the decline in industry has been matched by the jobs in health care, tech, and wall mart clerks. No sane person has suggested that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were won, can be won, or will be won.
-The catastophic failure of the US government is along the lines of Tsar Nicholas II. The US has a powerful economy and business class. Any lesser country would have never been able to, nor allowed it's government to engage in whole sale destruction of the state. A state can be mismanaged. The US WAS mismanaged. The money to the wars, as well as the complete lack of fiscal responsibility in the deregulation of markets (going back to Clinton) was covered up by a political class that is admitedly owned by lobbyists, and foreign powers.
-People who blames liberals, racists, jews, and republicans are the small minded bigots who always look for an outside factor. The reality is the american people, fed junk tv and fast food, have been blind to the reality of a corrupt, bloated, and disinterested state nominklatura.
-I add myself to the example of what is wrong in America. I, 26 with a degree in RUSSIAN have had to live in Russia, the ROK, and now Red China making a living as an english teacher. I can't join the military as I have asthma. I tried twice. I am now leanring Chinese. THis also won't help me. However, any well connected georgetown grad get's his state department intership of choice. I freely admit, if my own country won't take me, I'll happily help the CCP or Russia tomorrow.
I don't think Aux lost anything. He simply made a false assumption, that the OWS folks aren't patriots.
The Boston Tea Party example I think is a poor analogy, as the colonists here were doing what they could to harm a foreign oppresive government, who offered them no recourse in way of representation.
That simply is not the case now. Everyone of those folks on OWS can vote, and did. The current administration and it's party has done just as much pandering to corps and the market as any Republican, yet they're angry at Wall Street, who's job is to make profit, and can only do so now within the loopholes in regulation they've been saddled with. Uncertainly in the market is keeping businesses from hiring, uncertainty that is unwittingly being supported by Obama's policies, or in some cases lack thereof.
They are protesting at the wrong address.
They should be on Pennsylvania Ave.
I don't have a problem with the OWS crowd or what they are doing. They are exercising their constitutional rights to address a wrong.
I just think they're angry with the wrong people.