Question on Political Stances of Those here

ok heres why that wouldnt happen. They dont have the power. the power is the choice of the people. the problem with u saying thats how it would end up is this. in america we already have that. Why? becasue the power is in the government. In america today the only people who can get a political seat of any power are the rich. so what ur saying is already true. the people dont really have a say in this because all the people who end up in office tend to be power seeking individuals. thus most politicians are actually very similar despite what party they belong to.

 

You actually really didn't point out how that would happen except in your own mind, which you're generally pretty good at.

 

i think he mentioned it but it he didnt give any reason why it would happen. it still isnt really a valid arguement anyways because if u look at what we have now... its the same thing.

 

People really need to read the posts.

Anyway I linked to this -

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

Please read it before replying

You could also read -

Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat.http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922&f=36

 

red.

 

ya uhh seriously balbus, ur ideas scare me. ur about as close to communism as it gets without actually being a communist. and they dont scare me becasue im rich. i am not rich. im not too bad off but im not rich. im middle class.

 

Thank you shadow for highlighting once more something I mentioned many times here.

It seems that many Americans view anything that is defiantly left wing as being as close to communism as it gets without actually being communism, even when it very clearly isn’t.

 

after reading your "plutocratic tyranny" ramblings again i realized you said only one true and important statement on which the rest of ur writing is based.
here it is...

why is that the whole basis of ur writing? heres why. if the government werent involved in the economy as it legally is not supposed to be (in america) this would not happen. that is the very reason why a government is supposed to be seperate from business. the government has this notion that it is supposed to step in during economic downturns and all that when it reality the economy would do better without the government. ur whole writing only holds water because it is the government that wants more power. not the businesses. if the government didnt make up the power to get involved with businesses then businesses would have no reason to pay off politicians. the problem is not the free market idea but rather the government getting too big. ur looking at things from the wrong side. get government out of business and a free market economy will work fine.

 

Actually to play devil's advocate for a moment, I must say legally the US is allowed to interfere with the economy due to the Commerce Clause in the constitution

The great/bad thing about the constitution is that it's often so vague in it's scope that that one line over 220 years has taken on all kinds of meanings for better or worse.

 

the idea of the commerce clause is not to regulate businesses. read what it says. ill just post it here below.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

the idea of the clause is to ease the flow of businesses between states and nations and the Indian tribes not to make businesses do what the government wants. before the constitution was ratified the US had the articles of confederation. because the articles were so terrible states would be making legislation which made it nearly impossible for businesses to operate outside their individual states. the purpose of the commerce clause is to prevent this problem. the problem again is with the government twisting and ignoring the words of the constitution instead of abiding by it.

 

Who cares about the Constitution, anyways.


Its just a piece of paper!

 

o ya thats all it is... well it gets ignored enough that it has been reduced to yes just a piece of paper. poor constitution.

 

The constitution itself says "regulate" it says nothing about easing.

And the Articles of Confederation failed for multiple reasons, commerce among the least. The fact that under the articles one state could hold veto power over the entire federal government under the articles was one of the main reasons. The main problem in terms of moneys with the articles was that congress could only ask for money from the states, not actually levy taxes.

 

those are problems yes but ur only saying the things u learned in school as opposed to doing ur own research. those are exactly the two reasons they tell us in our school. they certainly are problems and maybe they are the 2 most major problems but there are dozens of more problems. this being one of them. as for using regulate yes it does use that word. however the word could be used to regulating the states not the businesses. the founding fathers intended for us to have a free market economy so why would they attempt to inhibit it from occuring? also why would they want to risk giving the central government too much power? they saw the negative effects that it had. yes they also saw the effects of giving the states too much power as well but it seemed to be their goal during this period to give the people the most freedoms. the people make businesses not the government. so wouldnt they want the people to have the freedom to build their businesses without worrying about reguations from the government?

my point here is look at the time period and what was going on. it doesnt make sense to claim that they want to regulate businesses but would rather make it easier to build a business.

 

The founding fathers all had very different ideas of how the government and nation should be run, the constiution as we know it was a grand compromise. There were dozens of problems with the articles, but the main problem that all the problems lead into was the fact the federal government had almost no real power and could basically be held hostage by each individual state. What the founding fathers wanted has to be taken into context, a free market was basically the only known system at the time, government involvement in just about everything was minimal at best. The founding fathers were not as always business friendly as it seems. Thomas Jefferson passed the Embargo Act of 1807, the Whiskey Rebellion which was over taxes which Washington personally put down himself, Hamilton and Adams were both strong supports of both a national bank and keeping a line of credit and debt to help build credit. Washington and Adams both raised taxes to help build up the nation. Context is extremely important when looking at history, the founding fathers would have near no concept of pollution regulations, corporate tax, fica, ect. We don't know what the founding fathers would want. Economics in 1790 consisted of what was basically various forms of sales tax and tariffs and that was it.

 

Shadow

Again the problem is reality gets in the way of ideology and a dogmatically ideological approach always ends in tragedy.

The thing is that since wealth (trade, business, and industry) is such an important aspect of a state, there has never been a state’s government that hasn’t been involved in it. Some of the earliest written records we have are to do with trade.

What has always been the problem has been the balance between the interests of power (and wealth) and that of the community.

The whole history of political thought (and action) has often come down to just that.

*

Anyway that’s how I see it as a balance, for me you have democratic government on one side protecting the interest of society at large and on the other wealth (trade and industry) seeking there own interests that are not always compatible with communal good.

A simple example – A factory is polluting the environment, it would cut into the profits of the company or individual that owns the plant, so they don’t want to do it, the community elect officials that make a law regulating pollution, the factory owners have to comply with the law.

You don’t seem to want any kind of balance you wish for a very weak elected government representing the people’s interests coming up against the powerful and unregulated interests of business.

And you think that will bring about a perfect ‘free market’

The problem is as I’ve explained, long before you reached that point wealth would seize power and corrupt thinks to serve their own purposes. A plutocratic oligarchy.

 

Mad

And that is why I believe constitution should be re-written from time to time.

 

The constitution is vague and general, it's principals stay throughout the years, if something changes enough over time the constitution is designed to be amended and has been numerous times. There is still really nothing in the constitution that is outdated.

 

Which is because the whole thing was written shortly after we had such a BLOODY ROTTEN time with BRITISH RULE.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were both put together with a bunch of crap fresh enough in their minds that they wanted to try to keep it from happening again. Ever. And that is why it's not so outdated as you think. Because no matter what year it is, we don't want to slide backwards.
Problem being people keep trying to read things into what's written to suit their own egos. I think if you read and understand the historical time period it's all rather clear. And altho nice to make room for growth and change, amendments can be quite dangerous if not done properly. Too many of the wrong ones would make the whole thing worthless.

 

agreed and thats kinda what i was saying earlier about the easing trade thing