Question About Operation of Small Government

HAHAHA Good answer, sir!! Unfortunately the government, both Bush and Obama, don't read it themselves.

 

Typical Teabag misrepresentation of facts. Considering that President Obama is a Constitutional Law Scholar with degrees from Harvard, I think I can say that he's probably read it a few more times than you have. You've made several references to the Constitution not being honored in our country, do you have a degree in Law or Political Science? Or did you go to Glenn Beck's School of Constitutional Deception. Maybe Sarah Palin's University of Political Bull Shit?

Impress me. Give me one example of how the Constitution of the United States is not being upheld today, and why you think it isn't.

.

 

Individual

LOL As you have rightly pointed out I have asked a number of questions that so far remain unanswered.
Instead of whining and complaining, why not answer them?

 

I cant help but notice that there is constant hair splitting over the constitution in these forums.. The strange part is that it almost involves some obscure interpretation biased on political climate, bias or agenda..
The Constitution was intentionally written in pretty simple terms so that it could be clearly understood by all whom it represented.. It was not intended to be exclusively understood by scholars with degrees in law and/or political science.
The Constitution did not contain any discriminatory language (in its original form) simply because the intent was not to discriminate.. We have blurred that fact with latter revisions/additions that were directed towards one specific group or another creating a situation where arguments could be made about individual inclusion.. Thus starting the perversion of the American Ideal.. All these political sub-context, special interest, and personal agenda hair splitters are only further perverting it... The Bill of Rights is and always has been sufficient to relay the intention of our government, when interpenetrated in the context of its intent its perfectly clear..

 

1st Amendment breach, Creating new ordinances with the sole and express purpose of hindering the ability of Muslims to build mosques in New York..

6th Amendment breach, Every federal trial involving California pot dispensaries

9th Amendment breach, Denying gay marriage..

10th Amendment breach, the centralization of power/authority in the federal government

 

*


If you wish to have a thread on the US Constitution please start one.


*

thank you

Balbus

 

Ask one.

 

Indie

LOL – you could just read the thread and pick one but last time I suggested that you got all shirty and snootily said - If it's not worth your time to ask it again, it's not worth my time to go back and look to see what you asked just to continue an argument.

So how about this one -

 

How about one vote for everyone, and additional votes based on some formula providing an extra vote for each "X" amount of dollars paid in taxes? Every legal citizen of age should be allowed to vote, but it is fact that many voters are bought based on what a particular candidate promises government will give them.

I have to admit, I was somewhat impressed by "The Fair Tax" proposal, although I still have a few unanswered questions about it. It might make for a nice thread, if it hasn't already been addressed here.

Next.

 

Basically you’re proposing a kind of property qualification, in which the wealthy would have more political say than others.

And it also seems to be true that many voters are ‘bought’ based on what a particular candidate claim they will give them in tax cuts (that almost always seeming to up favouring the advantaged over the disadvantaged).

Try reading

Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36


The principle would be the same wealth, which already had power and influence because of its wealth would increase in power and corrupt any system to its own interests.

I’ve explained this before and you haven’t yet addressed it.

 

That's pretty much how I see it. The bigest modification to the statement I'll add is that rather than preserving the power of those with advantage in general it's more specifically preserving/increasing the power of corporations. I see the original post in this thread mentions how more power should be handed over to corporations... and yet the rhetoric remains freedom this and liberty that - - for the people. phooey. The classic formation is the power of government on one side and the liberty of individuals on the other. An increase in one (nearly always) means the decrease of the other; but it's not the case any longer. Now it's a matter of government authority on one hand and corporate power on the other. And it's the corporations that have been winning for the last 30+ years. I consider a libertarian to be, in effect, a corporatist - which is a shame because most don't want to be any such thing.

 

Without excluding those with no property, it might help to prevent the oppression of a minority by the majority.

I prefer to concentrate more on right and wrong in making a determination of what is just and unjust.

The greater the power of a centralized government or any government for that matter, the more those with wealth will be attracted to influencing it.

 

Individual

Basically you’re proposing a kind of property qualification, in which the wealthy would have more political say than others.

So you are proposing a system where wealthy would have more political say than other in that society.

But you’ve argued that you believe something that you admit is unfair is to you also just. I think most people would think that something that was unfair was wrong, while you seem to be claiming it is right.

Try reading Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36
The principle would be the same wealth, which already had power and influence because of its wealth would increase in power and corrupt any system to its own interests.

And so your solution to this problem is to give more power and influence to wealth how does that help?

Your argument against government seems to be that it can have the ability of limiting the power and influence of wealth.

 

When you're paying for something to be done, don't you feel you should have a greater say, or perhaps even the final say, over how you're money is to be spent?

That's pretty much the system we have, and had had for quite some time now.

Such can be the case. If both a rich person and a poor person were to buy one lottery ticket and the the rich person won, would that be unfair and/or unjust? Life is a little like gambling, we each make choices, and choices can have good or bad consequences. If we expect government to protect us from the consequences of bad choices or make adjustments in ways that can be perceived as equalizing advantages, society is diminished as a result.

My solution is to reduce the power and control of government so that wealth is unable to profit from what government does.

When the power government has is limited by a proper interpretation of the Constitution, the people who make up the majority have more ability to control it than do a minority who possess great wealth.

 

Very good points. All I can add is that in a nation of 310 million people, there can be no such thing as small government, and despite what conservative might think, a government of, by and for the people should be exactly that. All policy should be directed at the well being of the people, us. That includes health care and help care along with protecting us as much as possible. AND, a corporation is NOT a citizen and should have no rights as such.

.

 

What does "currency of determined exchange" mean?

.

 

The primary difference between big government and small government is that big government exercises control of the people while small government allows people to exercise control of the government.
Societies prosper most when interactions take place primarily between the people who then learn the value of one another, rather than between the government and government agencies who then elevate their value above that of those who in reality are providing the means which support government and its many agencies. It then becomes easy for government to divide the people against one another and promote greater demand for government intervention on behalf of one side or the other. When the people have been divided, government is seen as the arbiter, and allows for easy manipulation of the people left and right, while it fills the pockets of its cronies invisibly.

 

Individual

Basically you’re proposing a kind of property qualification, in which the wealthy would have more political say than others.

But with a plutocratic system the problem is always the same - wealth, which already has power and influence would increase in power and influence and corrupt any system to its own interests at the expense of others.
I’ve pointed this out and explained it to you several times now and you still haven’t addressed this flaw in your thinking.

*

But you’ve argued that you believe something that you admit is unfair is to you also just. I think most people would think that something that was unfair was wrong, while you seem to be claiming it is right.

A baby cannot make informed choices or gamble in any rational way, and that is where you’re thinking always seems to stumble because your only answer to this problem so far has been ‘life isn’t fair’, a reply that just isn’t rational.
*

By giving wealth increased powers over that government?
You have already stated that the government in your system would have the power to raise taxes and presumably how and from where they came.

So what is to stop this very powerful group from using that power to corrupt the system to its own interests at the expense of others?

*
Your argument against government seems to be that it can have the ability of limiting the power and influence of wealth.

Please clarify?

*

 

Individual

Again you confuse size with outcome – good government would do both in the best possible way, there needs to be control of some peoples actions, you have even said so yourself (laws against the hurting of others for instance), but with a democratic element that allows people to exercise who is allowed to make those laws.

This seems rather confused – most people have not the time, energy, inclination or knowledge to ‘evaluate’ another persons worth and too often people would be motivated by bias and prejudice in their assessment.

This kind of thinking has often lead in the past to the self serving idea of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor. The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

It is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make the right choices they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and made bad choices they don’t deserve assistance.

This sounds a lot like paranoid conspiracy theory.

An invisible power controlling our government and out to divide and manipulate people for its own evil ends wu ha ha ha….tune in next week as they turn out to be seven foot lizards that can swallow hamsters whole.

Oh pleeeeease

*

 

Simple, wealth tends to flow toward power in order to gain influence.