- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yup. When you spend more on defense than the next ten nations COMBINED then something needs to change.
View attachment 67166545
Let us not, and tax all fairly by percentage.
Wrong.There is no fairness when most citizens pay for the infrastructure while a few speculators reap the rewards.
:naughtyYes it does.No it doesn't.When you spend more on defense than the next ten nations COMBINED then something needs to change.
Let us tax the privatizers of public wealth and untax the working man as much as is reasonable. Anytime we build our infrastructure the landholders and speculators profit through no work of their own.
Wrong.
Taxes at the same percentage for all, is fair.
Speculators are separate from that.
Your claim is ridiculous.
As no, it doesn't mean any such thing.
What we spend on our military should not be contingent on, or subject to, what others spend.
SureAgreed.
However, I need no justification beyond that redistribution partially cures capitalism of one of its most egregious flaws to make it actually be fairer, more efficient and sustainable. Capitalism is a deeply flawed system that requires such fixes and that is the only justification that is necessary. The only reason I agree to Capitalism at all in the first place is because all other systems that have been attempted are more deeply flawed, but in so doing we need not agree to all of its worst features.
He was wrong in the aggregate... obviously (see Soviet Union)... but he did have some relevant points.
Possible flaws in capitalism doesn't necessarily mean an alternative system is being promoted or looked two. Too many people on this thread are making that faulty assumption,=.
Thanks for the thoughtful, informative post. Having said that, I would note a few things.
First of all I would point out that the language
does not necessarily support the notion that the powers of the states are vast relative to the powers of the federal government. This is because that although the powers of the federal government may be few in the numeric sense, they are actually qualitatively superior. For example a person that has 20 one dollar bills may have more notes than a person having five hundred dollars bills. But in fact the person that has five hundred dollar bills has a quite a bit more money than the person with twenty one dollar bills.
Secondly, framers original intent, while a guide, cannot be taken as an absolute. For one thing, as you have slightly alluded to, various people had different points of view. Not only that, but if they had indeed wanted such language in the constitution itself, why did they not insert it? One reason may have been political, in that it may not have passed, which erodes the notion of looking to original intent in the first place
Lastly, although you have quoted Jefferson, he himself realized that the constitution was a product of the time and circumstances. For instance the framers ideas of suffrage were quite different from our notions of today, and when viewed in the modern context, appear to be inconsistent with the notions of how a free democratic people should view the right to vote. Therefore Jefferson said the following:
Of course Jefferson favored change by amendment rather than judicial activism. But still, the quote demonstrates that the framers also recognized that times change and that the needs of the people of the US would change. Therefore a constitutional interpretation that limits the sovereignty of states relative to the federal government is not inconsistent with the constitution itself.
Just as long as people realize that taking away the incentive to work hard is no answer, either.
I fully agree. The thesis of how an agent is 'incentivized' is hot topic in philosophy. There are those who suggest to disincentive people by invoking some policy for wage parity, will make people less inclined to innovate, progress and invent. That thesis is very much based on a materialistic world, IMO. I'm not convinced that would happen.
The choice should not be between capitalism in it's most virulent form or Marxism in its, but how to devise a system that rewards people for hard work and limits the potential for exploitation while simultaneously retaining enough incentives that people will,indeed, work hard if they wish to get ahead.
It was Rawls (1999) who wrote "inequality is justified only if it works in favour of those in society who are worse off". As you know, Rawls was one of the eminent liberal philosophers of the 20th century. As such, I would argue made the most coherent case for protection of 'personal liberty' with responsibility to some societal framework.
By the way, I answered yes to the question
Paul
Of course unionization in the U.S. was absolutely behind outsourcing. The union people cooked their own goose. The right to work states enjoyed some of the windfall of what industry remained.
Tume for an overhaul due to the simple fact that the computer and container ship technology made modern globalization possible, and that THAT "changed the game" so fundamentally that the rising tide is only lifting the boats of some.
Its not your granddads capitalism anymore.
And since its made up anyway, it's subject to revision if it isn't working for everybody anymore.
I have never seen any evidence that there was ever any intention of actually enacting a "workers paradiseb in the USSR. More like a bunch if clever bastards using the science of persuasion to put themselves in power in a country whose rulers were wholly incompetent. Where they fully intended to stay forever. Bait and switch. Never an "honest" attempt a communism.
Communism is impossible outside small groups of like minded individuals.
But the USSR was a scam from the get go.
the word "vast" comes from some reading i did concerning the foundering fathers were one of them states that.
the federal government has delegated powers only......and it states that.....right in the constitution they are delegated...amendment 10
the constitution is a limiting document, which creates federalism...it does not give or grant rights/freedoms.....it grants powers to the federal government only.....and those granted /delegated powers are the only ones government can act on .
the powers of the states are NOT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION....its not granting the states anything, as is granting to the federal government.......the Constitution just limits the states to the things listed in it and they are only a few things.....
the federal government powers are listed, meaning those are the only ones they have.
the state powers being not listed, meaning there a vast,/ numerous and infinite....because they are not limited by the constitution.
the delegated powers that are granted to the federal government though are .....NOT BROKEN DOWN, into laws which can be enacted by the government, that is why we have article 1 section 8 clause 18 .
EXAMPLE:
congress has the power to punish counterfeiting, and piracy.......however the two clauses of article 1 section 8, dealing with those two issues....does not spell out how to punish..... so clause 18 grants the federal government power to create a federal law, which determines the procedures and actual punishment of those crimes....this is what is know as "implied powers"
the Constitution ....again does not grant or give rights/freedoms..voting , speech, bear a firearm....it gives you nothing
the bill of rights are not rights granted to the people........it is a document which places restrictions on the federal government, that it shall "create no laws", violating the rights ...which are recognized only by the constitution.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, THEY TALK ABOUT NO RIGHT TO VOTE FOR WOMEN, OR BLACKS, AMONG OTHER THINGS.............THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE ISSUES.
the constitution setups, /creates the structure of the federal government, its branches and what powers each has,....it limits those powers, and a few to the states, and creates a separation of branches, and it also creates a separation of state and federal government powers, ...know has federalism.
so the Constitutions main goal is creating a......... separations of powers........known as a "MIXED GOVERNMENT"
the constitution is a limiting document, which creates federalism...it does not give or grant rights/freedoms.....it grants powers to the federal government only
the bill of rights are not rights granted to the people........it is a document which places restrictions on the federal government
the state powers being not listed, meaning there a vast,/ numerous and infinite....because they are not limited by the constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I have never seen any evidence that there was ever any intention of actually enacting a "workers paradiseb in the USSR. More like a bunch if clever bastards using the science of persuasion to put themselves in power in a country whose rulers were wholly incompetent. Where they fully intended to stay forever. Bait and switch. Never an "honest" attempt a communism.
Communism is impossible outside small groups of like minded individuals.
But the USSR was a scam from the get go.
I've read Das Kapital (not the manifesto though) and have a degree in economics. However, I would really love to hear what a teenager has to say.
You have the floor. Dazzle me.
They are profiting. That is a good thing. They also risk losing and do lose.Speculators pay some tax on their activities through property tax, but it does not discourage the act itself. They are still profiting off thecommonwealth rather than personal productive wealth.
WTF?I never said it should.
When you spend more on defense than the next ten nations COMBINED then something needs to change.
:dohIt simply puts into perspective how outrageous our military spending really is.
As much as we need to project our power and support our interests and continue research and development so we can keep it that way for a good long time.How much is enough to you?
One alternative, geoism, has been practiced with much success. Alas, the powers-that-be do not like it (guess where they receive a large chunk of their wealth?). So, they compromise with the People with a progressive income tax and social safety nets. Of course, nothing could be perfect, but it could be better.
When one can get 32 semi skilled workers for 12-14hrs/day for what one first day burger flipper gets for eight, all the "it was the unions!" or "it was taxes!" or "it was regulations!" rhetoric is exposed for what it is. Rhetoric.
Businesses move to take advantage of that dirt cheap labor the moment it became feasible. They would have done so had there been no regs, taxes or unions. Unless you can prove those elements offset a 32+:1 employee ratio for the same money. A ten man McDonalds crew for eight hours compared to a factory of 320 semi skilled workers for fourteen hours. Not a difficult choice to make for a CEO.
They are profiting. That is a good thing.
They also risk losing and do lose.
Nor should the act be discouraged.
WTF?
I just quoted you saying it.
Nothing about it is outrageous.
As much as we need to project our power and support our interests and continue research and development so we can keep it that way for a good long time.
Perhaps I will have more to say on this later. But for right not I have a problem with your statements that
AND....
AND...
You seem to imply that the Bill of Rights only places restrictions on the federal government. So for instance the first amendment states
If we take your assertions that the constitution only grants powers to the federal government and restricts the federal government but does not limit the powers of the states, we would be led to believe that the states have the right to pass laws that abridge freedom of the press. And that's not the case. Therefore the powers granted to the states are not infinite and are indeed limited by the constitution.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof," "shall be the supreme law of the land," and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States shall take the oath of fidelity to it. The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?