• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Record Pork Barrel Spending.

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Will companies, each led by a single, profit hungry individual, really care about the constitution. I believe you should seriously consider the morality and merit of these CEOs you trust so mightily before continuing on this 'libertarian' path.
Do politicians, who are profit and power hungry individuals, care for the constitution? NO!

At least CEOs are bound by law.

Politicians can just change it.



anomaly said:
In the USA, we can thank for our good cozy lives largely the New Deal.
The New Deal was unconstitutional, and only passed because of FDR's evil deeds.

When first presented to the Supreme Court, the New Deal was ousted as being obviously unconstitutional.

But good ol' FDR liked to bend the rules just like any corrupt politician!

Because the Constitution never explicitly states how many judges are to be on the Supreme Court, only that the President appoints them, FDR THREATENED to appoint as many as 45 liberal judges to the Supreme Court to make his proposition pass. Interestingly, the Supreme Court then ruled that this New Deal was somehow Constitutional.



anomaly said:
And how will you stop them? You wish to give them all the power, and in giving them this much, you cannot expect perfection out of them, especially when the public doesn't vote for them.
There's plenty of things people don't do because they aren't allowed to!

This is no different.



anomaly said:
Limiting freedoms is quite a general and vague phrase. I can name plenty of laws, though, that have improved living standards, improved worker's rights/standards, and helped ensure a more equal distribution of wealth in society. But, here's a law that gave more freedom to people: The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision increased freedom in public schools. In FDR's New Deal, a few laws were passed ensuring workers the freedom to organise unions. So, laws are not all bad, and a great many of them are neccesary in modern society.
If I steal all of Bill Gates money and distribute it evenly among the population, am I doing good and increasing freedom?

NOT ONE BIT!

I am a crook who would be put up on trial, and the only thing I'd be doing is infringing on Bill Gates' rights.




anomaly said:
By who? We'd have no taxes to fund a police force. We'd have no taxes to fund jails either. And the government would be powerless to control CEOs.
All money needed to run the country's justice systems would come out of the criminals' pockets. You do the crime, you pay for what you've done. Including the need for police and courts.



anomaly said:
And when the majority of workers (who have been treated poorly by their bosses) use their freedom to leave your libertarian state...what then?
What then?

The bosses get a big slap in the face!
That's when they realize, HEY! I better treat my workers good or I'll run out of business.

So from then on all smart, successful businesses would be kind to workers so they remain profitable and happy.

Everyone wins!


And all without the gang of government interfering with our lives!
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
Do politicians, who are profit and power hungry individuals, care for the constitution? NO!

At least CEOs are bound by law.

Politicians can just change it.
Money can often outweigh law in terms of importance. OJ Simpson was determined innocent, largely because he has so much money. Money is power, and any business exec. in this country has more power than any politician, with the possible exception of the President himself (who is currently rather friendly to these execs).




Gabo said:
The New Deal was unconstitutional, and only passed because of FDR's evil deeds.

When first presented to the Supreme Court, the New Deal was ousted as being obviously unconstitutional.

But good ol' FDR liked to bend the rules just like any corrupt politician!

Because the Constitution never explicitly states how many judges are to be on the Supreme Court, only that the President appoints them, FDR THREATENED to appoint as many as 45 liberal judges to the Supreme Court to make his proposition pass. Interestingly, the Supreme Court then ruled that this New Deal was somehow Constitutional.
How was it unconstitutional? It gave workers more rights, it helped to lower the unemployment rate, it eventually would lead to a narrower gap between rich and poor, and instituted a working system of Keynesian economics that was accepted as the economic norm, as the way to make a more equal, and thus better, economy. This, of course, all changed wiht Reagan and his anti-labor Reaganomics. If such a Deal is unconstitutional, if such a deal that gives more rights to the majority of people and narrowed the gap between rich and poor is unconstitutional, then tell me, what is constitutional? Allowing a tiny minority to dominate and thus control a huge majority? I don't think that's what the Constitution says at all.




Gabo said:
There's plenty of things people don't do because they aren't allowed to!

This is no different.
In the system you're proposing, they will indeed be 'allowed' to do this. Allowed is hardly the best choice of words, though, as no one will 'allow' the rich to control the poor, but with no government action, this is the inevitable result. One can hardly blame the men themselves, they simply do what capitalist theory says to do, that is, accumulate as much profit as possible at any means neccesary.




Gabo said:
If I steal all of Bill Gates money and distribute it evenly among the population, am I doing good and increasing freedom?

NOT ONE BIT!

I am a crook who would be put up on trial, and the only thing I'd be doing is infringing on Bill Gates' rights.
If Gates sets up a monopoly and does not allow competitors, isn't he stealing from me? Again, under the kindo f gov't you wish to have, we will be powerless to stop him from doing this. And if not pursuing these redistributive policies leads to mass poverty (as it has in countries with few gov't regulations, very few, such as Argentina and Brazil) are you willing to continue on with your policy, even when it hurts a majority?





Gabo said:
All money needed to run the country's justice systems would come out of the criminals' pockets. You do the crime, you pay for what you've done. Including the need for police and courts.
Many crimes occur because of a lack of money in possession of the criminal. So, with these laissez-faire policies, criminals (in NH!) will come up with millions of dollars? Since when did criminals become so rich?




Gabo said:
What then?

The bosses get a big slap in the face!
That's when they realize, HEY! I better treat my workers good or I'll run out of business.

So from then on all smart, successful businesses would be kind to workers so they remain profitable and happy.

Everyone wins!


And all without the gang of government interfering with our lives!
But wait, there will be total freedom, and this should apply to immigration as well. So these CEOs in NH can just fire American workers and hire some Mexican workers willing to do the job for much much less (since minimum wage will disappear). Yep, that's a desirable system, because I just can't stand American workers having a decent life and decent pay. Perhpas you should check out a history book, because everywhere these laissez-faire policies have been implemented, they have either failed or lead to a huge concentration of wealth into the hands of very few.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
anomaly said:
Money can often outweigh law in terms of importance. OJ Simpson was determined innocent, largely because he has so much money. Money is power, and any business exec. in this country has more power than any politician, with the possible exception of the President himself (who is currently rather friendly to these execs).
No, OJ was found to be "Not Guilty." Not guilty is not the same thing as innocent.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pacridge said:
No, OJ was found to be "Not Guilty." Not guilty is not the same thing as innocent.
Good point...how could I forget...but either way it was his money that did it for him, since he could buy a very good lawyer to lie for him. You or I in the same situation would most definitely be found 'guilty'.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
How was it unconstitutional? It gave workers more rights, it helped to lower the unemployment rate, it eventually would lead to a narrower gap between rich and poor, and instituted a working system of Keynesian economics that was accepted as the economic norm, as the way to make a more equal, and thus better, economy. This, of course, all changed wiht Reagan and his anti-labor Reaganomics. If such a Deal is unconstitutional, if such a deal that gives more rights to the majority of people and narrowed the gap between rich and poor is unconstitutional, then tell me, what is constitutional? Allowing a tiny minority to dominate and thus control a huge majority? I don't think that's what the Constitution says at all.
First of all, the Supreme Court knew it was unconstitutional. If anyone knows our Constitution best, it's them.

Here is what I know about it:
-Social Security was stealing from me to give to you.
That's not respecting my property rights at all.
-FDR took us off the gold standard, which gave birth to the devil-child Federal Reserve and started an even bigger mess with our economy (which we'll be catching up with sometime around 2015-2030).



anomaly said:
If Gates sets up a monopoly and does not allow competitors, isn't he stealing from me?
NEWSFLASH!

The only way to assure you have no competition is to use government FORCE to make sure you maintain a monopoly.

If people are unhappy with Gates, we will soon see other companies rise up to provide (ever heard of Macintosh or Linux operating systems?)



anomaly said:
Again, under the kindo f gov't you wish to have, we will be powerless to stop him from doing this.
First, they can't do it anyway.

Second, where do u think they get ALL their money from?

THE PEOPLE!

We have ALL of the power! If we boycott the product, the business will go bankrupt.



anomaly said:
are you willing to continue on with your policy, even when it hurts a majority?
Yes.......

I don't think it will hurt the majority. Which is why I'll keep it that way.

But you think itll hurt the majority. Which is why you'll have a socialist community.



anomaly said:
Many crimes occur because of a lack of money in possession of the criminal. So, with these laissez-faire policies, criminals (in NH!) will come up with millions of dollars? Since when did criminals become so rich?
The criminals can be put to work actually producing something to pay off their debt, rather than sitting in jail and doing nothing.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
First of all, the Supreme Court knew it was unconstitutional. If anyone knows our Constitution best, it's them.

Here is what I know about it:
-Social Security was stealing from me to give to you.
That's not respecting my property rights at all.
-FDR took us off the gold standard, which gave birth to the devil-child Federal Reserve and started an even bigger mess with our economy (which we'll be catching up with sometime around 2015-2030).




NEWSFLASH!

The only way to assure you have no competition is to use government FORCE to make sure you maintain a monopoly.

If people are unhappy with Gates, we will soon see other companies rise up to provide (ever heard of Macintosh or Linux operating systems?)




First, they can't do it anyway.

Second, where do u think they get ALL their money from?

THE PEOPLE!

We have ALL of the power! If we boycott the product, the business will go bankrupt.




Yes.......

I don't think it will hurt the majority. Which is why I'll keep it that way.

But you think itll hurt the majority. Which is why you'll have a socialist community.




The criminals can be put to work actually producing something to pay off their debt, rather than sitting in jail and doing nothing.
It seems rather obvious to me that this debate is pointless (while I could continue the debate, I'm tired of it lol) and has no end in site. I do, however, appreciate that you are atleast sensitive ot the anti-capitalist cause. Although I disagree with just about everything you say in economics (and we'll most likely never agree), it seems to me that I'd agree with you on just about any other topic. So why do you always stay in the economics forum (where your views seem to be heavily idealistic), and not expand your libertarian views to other topics?
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
It seems rather obvious to me that this debate is pointless (while I could continue the debate, I'm tired of it lol) and has no end in site. I do, however, appreciate that you are atleast sensitive ot the anti-capitalist cause. Although I disagree with just about everything you say in economics (and we'll most likely never agree), it seems to me that I'd agree with you on just about any other topic. So why do you always stay in the economics forum (where your views seem to be heavily idealistic), and not expand your libertarian views to other topics?
I've been pretty busy lately and haven't actually browsed the forums in forever.

All I've been doing is responding to posts because I get alerted via email.



I'll look up some of the issues around and see about responding some more.....
 
Top Bottom