CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Derideo_Te]

I'm still wondering what 'scrutiny' you have in mind. Apart from offhand slurs, I've not seen any.

I find I have given you enough hints and counter-arguments to think through your own proposals. You may ignore most of my work, of course, but then you don't get to request more of it.

Well, nevermind then. I think I've presented a perspective on economic freedom that a lot of people fail to appreciate. Unless there's external coercion going on, wealth is distributed the way we, the people, want it to be distributed. That doesn't fall apart under scrutiny. It's an undeniable fact.

I am sure that you, yourself and your ego all agree that it is an "undeniable fact" however reality says your "perspective on economic freedom" is just another Libertarian Utopian fallacy.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm still wondering what 'scrutiny' you have in mind. Apart from offhand slurs, I've not seen any.

I find I have given you enough hints and counter-arguments to think through your own proposals. You may ignore most of my work, of course, but then you don't get to request more of it.

Well, nevermind then. I think I've presented a perspective on economic freedom that a lot of people fail to appreciate. Unless there's external coercion going on, wealth is distributed the way we, the people, want it to be distributed. That doesn't fall apart under scrutiny. It's an undeniable fact.

I would suppose that depends on what one considers to be external coercion.

That's what prompted my question requesting a clarification.

I think with the government the way it is now, government is doing a whole lot of things, including wealth distribution, with the people either being ignorant of what is going on or what the people want not being done. On the other hand, those who are receiving government benefits of any kind and in any amount probably don't want to rock the boat and lose even the little they might be getting. Those who believe in the nobility and good intentions of government won't even look at any possible negative consequences, and others simply don't want to be bothered.

So in one way of looking at it, whether out of apathy, ignorance, self serving motives, or some kind of rose colored vision of nobility, dblack might very well be right about the wealth being distributed at least as the majority of people want it. If that was what he meant to say--I'm still hoping for clarification on that--I hope he's wrong.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm still wondering what 'scrutiny' you have in mind. Apart from offhand slurs, I've not seen any.

I find I have given you enough hints and counter-arguments to think through your own proposals. You may ignore most of my work, of course, but then you don't get to request more of it.

Well, nevermind then. I think I've presented a perspective on economic freedom that a lot of people fail to appreciate. Unless there's external coercion going on, wealth is distributed the way we, the people, want it to be distributed. That doesn't fall apart under scrutiny. It's an undeniable fact.

I would suppose that depends on what one considers to be external coercion.

That's what prompted my question requesting a clarification.

I think with the government the way it is now, government is doing a whole lot of things, including wealth distribution, with the people either being ignorant of what is going on or what the people want not being done. On the other hand, those who are receiving government benefits of any kind and in any amount probably don't want to rock the boat and lose even the little they might be getting. Those who believe in the nobility and good intentions of government won't even look at any possible negative consequences, and others simply don't want to be bothered.

So in one way of looking at it, whether out of apathy, ignorance, self serving motives, or some kind of rose colored vision of nobility, dblack might very well be right about the wealth being distributed at least as the majority of people want it. If that was what he meant to say--I'm still hoping for clarification on that--I hope he's wrong.

Yes, that was actually a big part of what I meant, too. In an elected representative government, is wealth distribution by government coercive or the way the people, through their elected reps, want?

There are also, I am certain, differences of opinion about what are or are not coercive business practices which could also be part of the question.

It is just another indicator of how these types of questions are complex and can have more than one possible answer/solution, I think.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm still wondering what 'scrutiny' you have in mind. Apart from offhand slurs, I've not seen any.

I find I have given you enough hints and counter-arguments to think through your own proposals. You may ignore most of my work, of course, but then you don't get to request more of it.

Well, nevermind then. I think I've presented a perspective on economic freedom that a lot of people fail to appreciate. Unless there's external coercion going on, wealth is distributed the way we, the people, want it to be distributed. That doesn't fall apart under scrutiny. It's an undeniable fact.

I would suppose that depends on what one considers to be external coercion.

That's what prompted my question requesting a clarification.

I think with the government the way it is now, government is doing a whole lot of things, including wealth distribution, with the people either being ignorant of what is going on or what the people want not being done. On the other hand, those who are receiving government benefits of any kind and in any amount probably don't want to rock the boat and lose even the little they might be getting. Those who believe in the nobility and good intentions of government won't even look at any possible negative consequences, and others simply don't want to be bothered.

So in one way of looking at it, whether out of apathy, ignorance, self serving motives, or some kind of rose colored vision of nobility, dblack might very well be right about the wealth being distributed at least as the majority of people want it. If that was what he meant to say--I'm still hoping for clarification on that--I hope he's wrong.

Yes, that was actually a big part of what I meant, too. In an elected representative government, is wealth distribution by government coercive or the way the people, through their elected reps, want?

There are also, I am certain, differences of opinion about what are or are not coercive business practices which could also be part of the question.

It is just another indicator of how these types of questions are complex and can have more than one possible answer/solution, I think.

Indeed. A discussion of modern day Americans would likely propose a wide variety of models, and, assuming it is grown up patriots who are proposing each, each would be able to defend or promote his/her preferred model without even commenting on anybody else's model.

Some of the models I think have already been proposed in various ways:

1. The federal government is assigned very specific and limited areas of authority necessary to secure our rights, function as a nation rather than 50 different provinces, and manage what cannot be realistically or as effectively be managed by the states. The people will then be left alone to live their lives and organize their states and local communities into whatever sorts of societies they wish to have.

2. The federal government is given authority as described in No. 1, but the states will be subordinate to the federal government and conduct their affairs as the federal government dictates.

3. The states are abolished and the federal government handles or assigns all functions of government at all levels.

4. The states and communities are subordinate to the federal government in every way and the federal government is given full authority to take whatever resources it needs for what it deems the greater good and to provide that greater good.

Totalitarianism is always the elephant in the room with some of these models, but so far nobody has yet recommended a dictatorship or monarchy.

 

[dblack]

I'm still wondering what 'scrutiny' you have in mind. Apart from offhand slurs, I've not seen any.

I find I have given you enough hints and counter-arguments to think through your own proposals. You may ignore most of my work, of course, but then you don't get to request more of it.

Well, nevermind then. I think I've presented a perspective on economic freedom that a lot of people fail to appreciate. Unless there's external coercion going on, wealth is distributed the way we, the people, want it to be distributed. That doesn't fall apart under scrutiny. It's an undeniable fact.

Do you mean that is the way it is now? Or that is the way it is without so much government manipulation? Because I certainly often don't want the wealth distributed the way the federal government sometimes distributes it. And I do count myself as one of 'we the people'.

My comments are irrespective or the way it is now. I'm simply pointing out that the wealth distribution that results from free trade IS the will of the people. The only way that wouldn't be the case is if their economic decisions are coerced in some way. I think that's important to consider when we discuss wealth inequality. If wealth inequality is simply a matter of people freely giving their money to those who provide them with goods and services they want, that's a good thing. It's people delegating economic power to those they think are doing the best things with that power. On the other hand, if wealth is coerced, if it's a result of theft or fraud or extortion, it's no longer an expression of the will of the people and should be considered "unjust".

 

[dblack]

Yes, that was actually a big part of what I meant, too. In an elected representative government, is wealth distribution by government coercive or the way the people, through their elected reps, want?

That only ever represents what the majority of the people want. It's a violation of the will of everyone else. That's the problem with majority rule government. That's why we should avoid it where universal conformity isn't necessary. Letting people distribute their money as they see fit, according to their own individual values, is a far more accurate expression of the will of the people.

There are also, I am certain, differences of opinion about what are or are not coercive business practices which could also be part of the question.

It is just another indicator of how these types of questions are complex and can have more than one possible answer/solution, I think.

Agreed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, that was actually a big part of what I meant, too. In an elected representative government, is wealth distribution by government coercive or the way the people, through their elected reps, want?

That only ever represents what the majority of the people want. It's a violation of the will of everyone else. That's the problem with majority rule government. That's why we should avoid it where universal conformity isn't necessary. Letting people distribute their money as they see fit, according to their own individual values, is a far more accurate expression of the will of the people.

There are also, I am certain, differences of opinion about what are or are not coercive business practices which could also be part of the question.

It is just another indicator of how these types of questions are complex and can have more than one possible answer/solution, I think.

Agreed.

Would you agree that put into the simplest terms, it comes down to the right/ability of the people to use the resources they lawfully/ethically acquired as THEY choose to use them as opposed to somebody else having ability/authority to take those resources and use for something else?

 

[dblack]

Yes, that was actually a big part of what I meant, too. In an elected representative government, is wealth distribution by government coercive or the way the people, through their elected reps, want?

That only ever represents what the majority of the people want. It's a violation of the will of everyone else. That's the problem with majority rule government. That's why we should avoid it where universal conformity isn't necessary. Letting people distribute their money as they see fit, according to their own individual values, is a far more accurate expression of the will of the people.

There are also, I am certain, differences of opinion about what are or are not coercive business practices which could also be part of the question.

It is just another indicator of how these types of questions are complex and can have more than one possible answer/solution, I think.

Agreed.

Would you agree that put into the simplest terms, it comes down to the right/ability of the people to use the resources they lawfully/ethically acquired as THEY choose to use them as opposed to somebody else having ability/authority to take those resources and use for something else?

I suppose. But I think there is a valid role for majority rule. There are circumstances where it's important for society to agree on one course and mandate conformity.

 

[Olde Europe]

I'm simply pointing out that the wealth distribution that results from free trade IS the will of the people.

No, it is not. You made that up.

 

[dblack]

I'm simply pointing out that the wealth distribution that results from free trade IS the will of the people.

No, it is not. You made that up.

Good answer, good answer!

 

[Derideo_Te]

On the other hand, if wealth is coerced, if it's a result of theft or fraud or extortion, it's no longer an expression of the will of the people and should be considered "unjust".

The Wall Street Casino derivatives fraud was enabled by deregulation promoted by your beloved Libertarian Koch bros. They "coerced wealth" (whatever that means) by buying politicians to do their bidding. That deregulation was not the "will of the people" because it was the "will of the Liberatarian Koch bros" instead. In essence that is what you erroneously believe would be "freedom" in your Libertarian Utopia.

 

[dblack]

On the other hand, if wealth is coerced, if it's a result of theft or fraud or extortion, it's no longer an expression of the will of the people and should be considered "unjust".

The Wall Street Casino derivatives fraud was enabled by deregulation promoted by your beloved Libertarian Koch bros. They "coerced wealth" (whatever that means) by buying politicians to do their bidding. That deregulation was not the "will of the people" because it was the "will of the Liberatarian Koch bros" instead. In essence that is what you erroneously believe would be "freedom" in your Libertarian Utopia.

I'm having hard time parsing what you're trying to say here. We should probably start with the concept of coercion if you don't know what that means. As I indicated, I'm considering "coerced wealth" to be wealth that results from theft, fraud or extortion - or is otherwise taken from people against their will. I'll also reiterate that I'm considering the will of all the people, not just the majority. So wealth that results from legislative action (regulation or even selective de-regulation, which is usually just "re-regulation" with different winners and losers) should be considered coerced wealth.

 

[Derideo_Te]

On the other hand, if wealth is coerced, if it's a result of theft or fraud or extortion, it's no longer an expression of the will of the people and should be considered "unjust".

The Wall Street Casino derivatives fraud was enabled by deregulation promoted by your beloved Libertarian Koch bros. They "coerced wealth" (whatever that means) by buying politicians to do their bidding. That deregulation was not the "will of the people" because it was the "will of the Liberatarian Koch bros" instead. In essence that is what you erroneously believe would be "freedom" in your Libertarian Utopia.

I'm having hard time parsing what you're trying to say here. We should probably start with the concept of coercion if you don't know what that means. As I indicated, I'm considering "coerced wealth" to be wealth that results from theft, fraud or extortion - or is otherwise taken from people against their will. I'll also reiterate that I'm considering the will of all the people, not just the majority. So wealth that results from legislative action (regulation or even selective de-regulation, which is usually just "re-regulation" with different winners and losers) should be considered coerced wealth.

How about we just call a spade a spade instead?

Deregulation is deregulation. The purpose of deregulation is to remove safeguards that were put in place to protect all of We the People. The Libertarian Koch bros have openly stated that they want everything deregulated.

We have all witnessed the financial harm done to millions of Americans as a result of deregulation over and over again starting with the S&L crisis and going all the way up to the 2008 economic collapse. The last budget passed in December included Libertarian deregulation that will set us all up for yet another 2008 economic collapse.

So what you euphemistically term to be "coerced wealth" is actually Libertarian deregulation.

 

[Olde Europe]

The Wall Street Casino derivatives fraud was enabled by deregulation promoted by your beloved Libertarian Koch bros. They "coerced wealth" (whatever that means) by buying politicians to do their bidding. That deregulation was not the "will of the people" because it was the "will of the Liberatarian Koch bros" instead. In essence that is what you erroneously believe would be "freedom" in your Libertarian Utopia.

That's certainly a valid point, but it covers just a tiny slice of a far broader problem that reflects power and wealth disparities affecting every aspect of (economic) life, from the price of a loaf of bread to the price and characteristics of your car, from your insurance costs to your retirement package.

The fraud that is equating money spent to the "will of the people" is quite easily revealed by asking, "Who really spends money in exactly the amounts and at the place and time of their choosing?" That may be possible for the top 1%, or rather the top 0.1%. All others spend their money according to their needs and wants, according to the constraints scarcity imposes on them, and market forces beyond their control, based on inevitable informational deficits / disparities, which is not the same as their "will". Will or no, in order to avoid hunger or freezing, you do what you have to do, even if none of the realistically available choices align with your will.

The real fraud, however, is the attempt at equating the moral and political formulation and expression of a will of "We, the People" with mere spending decisions, that is, in effect assigning a seal of moral sanctity to the greedy exploitation of disparities and the reinforcement thereof, and the reduction of citizens - standing in for each other whilst sharing an interconnected fate and aiming at creating a better Union - to solipsistic cave-dwellers supremely unconcerned with, or preferably unaware of, neighbors freezing or starving to death.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, that was actually a big part of what I meant, too. In an elected representative government, is wealth distribution by government coercive or the way the people, through their elected reps, want?

That only ever represents what the majority of the people want. It's a violation of the will of everyone else. That's the problem with majority rule government. That's why we should avoid it where universal conformity isn't necessary. Letting people distribute their money as they see fit, according to their own individual values, is a far more accurate expression of the will of the people.

There are also, I am certain, differences of opinion about what are or are not coercive business practices which could also be part of the question.

It is just another indicator of how these types of questions are complex and can have more than one possible answer/solution, I think.

Agreed.

Would you agree that put into the simplest terms, it comes down to the right/ability of the people to use the resources they lawfully/ethically acquired as THEY choose to use them as opposed to somebody else having ability/authority to take those resources and use for something else?

I suppose. But I think there is a valid role for majority rule. There are circumstances where it's important for society to agree on one course and mandate conformity.

Yes. So long as our unalienable rights are protected, otherwise the only way that social contract can work at all is via majority vote. We being human beings are not often going to agree on every single issue. So whether it is to vote for what color the new carpet in the church sanctuary will be or whether to install a water system for the village or whether to ratify a new amendment for the Constitution, a majority vote is the only democratic way to go.

However, in the context of two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner, we also need to include in the debate how much one group of Americans can impose on another.

I have always thought that the property owners who will be funding the new school or whatever with property taxes should be the only ones to vote for that rather than all the non property owners having a vote in that.

And I have long thought that only tax payers should have a say about how much their taxes will be.

The one thing I haven't figured out is how to accomplish that and still have representative government rather than do everything by referendum.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Mea Culpa. I posted in here earlier not realizing I was in the CDZ. I try not to post in this arena.

 

[Foxfyre]

Mea Culpa. I posted in here earlier not realizing I was in the CDZ. I try not to post in this arena.

Wish you would Ilar. We need folks to participate in this discussion because I think it is an important discussion that needs to happen across the entire country. I put this thread in the CDZ in hopes we could have a grown up discussion free of the food fights and petty ideological or partisan ad hominem and personal sniping. But alas, due to a couple of individuals, such was not to be.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Mea Culpa. I posted in here earlier not realizing I was in the CDZ. I try not to post in this arena.

Wish you would Ilar. We need folks to participate in this discussion because I think it is an important discussion that needs to happen across the entire country. I put this thread in the CDZ in hopes we could have a grown up discussion free of the food fights and petty ideological or partisan ad hominem and personal sniping. But alas, due to a couple of individuals, such was not to be.

The "rules" of the cdz prevent us from speaking fully and with the same kind of spice we may use outside of the cdz. I stumble over that rule when I make the mistake of entering into the cdz because I fail to realize that I am IN the special arena.

If I see a member of this illustrious board using some ad hominem argument -- generally -- against all conservatives, for example, I might respond with the same style, not realizing that I am violating the rules. In reality, I am not sure why the other member isn't flagged on the play, too. But that's a kind of a non issue.

If I choose to post here realizing WHERE I am, I would try to comply with the rules. But it's so easy to slip-up, I usually avoid this arena when I realize the thread in question has been put up IN this arena.

 

[Foxfyre]

Mea Culpa. I posted in here earlier not realizing I was in the CDZ. I try not to post in this arena.

Wish you would Ilar. We need folks to participate in this discussion because I think it is an important discussion that needs to happen across the entire country. I put this thread in the CDZ in hopes we could have a grown up discussion free of the food fights and petty ideological or partisan ad hominem and personal sniping. But alas, due to a couple of individuals, such was not to be.

The "rules" of the cdz prevent us from speaking fully and with the same kind of spice we may use outside of the cdz. I stumble over that rule when I make the mistake of entering into the cdz because I fail to realize that I am IN the special arena.

If I see a member of this illustrious board using some ad hominem argument -- generally -- against all conservatives, for example, I might respond with the same style, not realizing that I am violating the rules. In reality, I am not sure why the other member isn't flagged on the play, too. But that's a kind of a non issue.

If I choose to post here realizing WHERE I am, I would try to comply with the rules. But it's so easy to slip-up, I usually avoid this arena when I realize the thread in question has been put up IN this arena.

The flagrant violations have just not been important enough to me to report and unless they are reported, they won't be moderated any more it seems. And I do understand that the civility requested in the CDZ is boring to a lot of USMB members and apparently impossible for some.

But I really did hope for an intelligent discussion of the concepts that should go into a reformed or revised Constitution of the United States of America or a good argument for why the existing language is sufficient. I do think we are the last generation of Americans with any hope of accomplishing that which is why I think it so important that the discussion begin.

But oh well. If wishes were horses and all that. . . .

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Mea Culpa. I posted in here earlier not realizing I was in the CDZ. I try not to post in this arena.

Wish you would Ilar. We need folks to participate in this discussion because I think it is an important discussion that needs to happen across the entire country. I put this thread in the CDZ in hopes we could have a grown up discussion free of the food fights and petty ideological or partisan ad hominem and personal sniping. But alas, due to a couple of individuals, such was not to be.

The "rules" of the cdz prevent us from speaking fully and with the same kind of spice we may use outside of the cdz. I stumble over that rule when I make the mistake of entering into the cdz because I fail to realize that I am IN the special arena.

If I see a member of this illustrious board using some ad hominem argument -- generally -- against all conservatives, for example, I might respond with the same style, not realizing that I am violating the rules. In reality, I am not sure why the other member isn't flagged on the play, too. But that's a kind of a non issue.

If I choose to post here realizing WHERE I am, I would try to comply with the rules. But it's so easy to slip-up, I usually avoid this arena when I realize the thread in question has been put up IN this arena.

The flagrant violations have just not been important enough to me to report. And I do understand that the civility requested in the CDZ is boring to a lot of USMB members. But I really did hope for an intelligent discussion of the concepts that should go into a reformed or revised Constitution of the United States of America or why the existing language is sufficient. I do think we are the last generation of Americans with any hope of accomplishing that which is why I think it so important that the discussion begin.

But oh well. If wishes were horses and all that. . . .

I agree. There's no reason to "report" anything. My issue is that if I am dopey enough to rise to some "bait" in a CDZ thread, I might get flagged on it. Maybe even justifiably so. But the other "offender" usually is not.

I confess to a certain lack of care in posting here since I rarely remember that a particular thread is IN a protected forum.

So, back to your OP:

I wouldn't alter the Preamble even though the turn of phrase "more perfect union" clearly doesn't make any sense.

Frankly, other than some AMENDMENTS, I wouldn't change any part of the Constitution. And I would be VERY cautious as to any proposed amendments, too. Even the crystal clear words of the Constitution get "interpreted." I'd hate to think what an activist liberal court would do to some murky attempts to change it.