Can You Sum Up Your Political Philosophy?

[Big Fitz]

That's what I'm talking about. A voluntary compact between states, limited in scope and power leaving the bulk of the power with the states.

Your concept was widely held during the constitutional convention. But it wasn't universal. The southern states should have realized the gravity of that disagreement and secured a more certain bill of states rights before signing on.

No. Lincoln violated the constitution by choosing to preserve the Union. If the understanding that the constitution was not a voluntary contract between the states wasn't the case, none of the states would have signed on.

I guess if/when more conservative philosophies are in power for a while, we may be able to fix that... or use the coming civil war to fix this.

 

[antagon]

AS is a system whose intention is to support the means of production being owned entirely by labor. It intends to eliminate the class structure in so doing.

i feel ya. this is right up your alley with the quest for zero-sum commerce. i get what you mean with the corps and labor.

will equity-based investment recourse be forfeit in such a system? will equity even have commercial value?

i see entrepreneurship being scarce in such a system because it does not support the self-determination which folks seek when they go into business and it coerces loyalty to existing businesses. i envision strong conglomerates. how would those not affiliated with a company manage in such a society?

what about land ownership?

 

[antagon]

That's what I'm talking about. A voluntary compact between states, limited in scope and power leaving the bulk of the power with the states.

Your concept was widely held during the constitutional convention. But it wasn't universal. The southern states should have realized the gravity of that disagreement and secured a more certain bill of states rights before signing on.

No. Lincoln violated the constitution by choosing to preserve the Union. If the understanding that the constitution was not a voluntary contract between the states wasn't the case, none of the states would have signed on.

I guess if/when more conservative philosophies are in power for a while, we may be able to fix that... or use the coming civil war to fix this.

the supremacy clause, the compact clause and the contract clause make it more likely that seceding states violated the constitution. what's your case against the union?

 

[loosecannon]

will equity-based investment recourse be forfeit in such a system? will equity even have commercial value?

Equity will have value, but of course the goal is for the class less collectives to employ it in very similar ways as capitalists do today, to promote the growth of new enterprises, or to expand the productivity of existing (collectively owned) enterprises.

i see entrepreneurship being scarce in such a system because it does not support the self-determination which folks seek when they go into business and it coerces loyalty to existing businesses. i envision strong conglomerates.

most people would belong to entrepreneurial enterprises, which they participate in as owners, stock holders and employees.

how would those not affiliated with a company manage in such a society?

self employed (which is exactly the same model applied on an individual scale) or working for the state. Perhaps as entry level probationary applicants for membership in existing collective corps.

what about land ownership?

No idea, I have never heard a AS object to our current system of land ownership.

 

[loosecannon]

the supremacy clause, the compact clause and the contract clause make it more likely that seceding states violated the constitution. what's your case against the union?

While I think the states fucked up by not demanding a bill of state's rights I am still interested in hearing your explanations of how these three clauses effected the state's perogative to secede. After all even the SC felt the need to spell out in ruling that the states had no such right, after the war. Meaning that even according to the SC the matter was unsettled beforehand.

 

[antagon]

contracts clause: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation"

compacts clause: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power"

supremacy clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States...shall be the supreme Law of the Land...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" this, of course, applies to the above.

all the emphasis is mine, obviously.

if secession isn't out of bounds, operating independently from the US is definitely. no currency, no non-republican govt. no currency not made from gold or silver, no trade law. bond to privileges and immunities. barred from alliances and international/interstate trade relations. de facto.

 

[Big Fitz]

the supremacy clause, the compact clause and the contract clause make it more likely that seceding states violated the constitution.

It still comes down to whether or not the constitution is a voluntary contract or not. Really, the whole issue hinges on that. it is the ultimate hedge against runaway national power forcing states to obey laws their citizens disagree with.

For example, would you be against secession if the national government decided to reinstate slavery or some other law that for whatever reason was not struck down by the supreme court? Is the contract then voluntary or not?

I understand what you're saying, but really, this is based on an understanding outside of the framework of the constitution in some regard because it looks at the reasoning and thinking that brought the states to join each other in a much more binding contract than the failed articles of confederation, and there was still significant fear of becoming subjects again.

a king 1000 miles away was not as bad as 1000 kings 1 mile away, and if free men cannot dissolve a contract that has become his chains, are they really free?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

For some people I imagine this sort of thing is easy. They might say, "I'm a Democratic Progressive" or something. For most of us, we've been burned by simple partisan adhesion or we've learned along the way that it's just not that accurate to fence your position in a few words. It may take putting out a blend like the popular 'Fiscal Conservative/ Social Liberal', or maybe you've found representation in 3rd parties. Maybe 'Tea Party' is established enough to define a political philosophy.

I have found this hard. I wont likely ever have a party allegiance unless hell freezes over and I go into politics myself. Even then, I am liable to start up my own wayside party. I'm a fan of the U.S. and our way of running the show. I don't think it has pier among nations, at least. Within the American paradigm, I see myself as a 'Social Capitalist (Micro)corporatist'. This is a decent reflection of the aims of what I consider good policy to be and a bit about how I live my life.

But that's me. Anyone care to share where they are coming from with their political, geopolitical, economic and social philosophy?

I can sum up my political philosophy very simply. The Job of the government is to stay out of the people's way and lives as much as possible.

To sum it up in a Thomas Paine quote "That government is best which governs least"

What else do I need to say

 

[The T]

Fierce Constitutional Independent.

 

[antagon]

the supremacy clause, the compact clause and the contract clause make it more likely that seceding states violated the constitution.

It still comes down to whether or not the constitution is a voluntary contract or not. Really, the whole issue hinges on that. it is the ultimate hedge against runaway national power forcing states to obey laws their citizens disagree with.

For example, would you be against secession if the national government decided to reinstate slavery or some other law that for whatever reason was not struck down by the supreme court? Is the contract then voluntary or not?

I understand what you're saying, but really, this is based on an understanding outside of the framework of the constitution in some regard because it looks at the reasoning and thinking that brought the states to join each other in a much more binding contract than the failed articles of confederation, and there was still significant fear of becoming subjects again.

a king 1000 miles away was not as bad as 1000 kings 1 mile away, and if free men cannot dissolve a contract that has become his chains, are they really free?

i think it is a procedural contract. states can back out, but they have to gain congressional approval for that. i think the congress could recharter the government on that basis as some have argued would be valuable. they could just back their states out, survive the veto, and agree on an alternative.

in the end laws are just papers. hundreds of thousands of americans died to settle the secession debate. if the rebels won, it would be settled otherwise: they wouldn't be subject to another country's constitution and would be sovereign.

i certainly think any government has a right to defend itself from sedition, treason and rebellion. alternatively, the right to rebellion is a natural right which the constitution can't grant or restrain even if it desired.

 

[loosecannon]

contracts clause: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation"

compacts clause: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power"

supremacy clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States...shall be the supreme Law of the Land...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" this, of course, applies to the above.

all the emphasis is mine, obviously.

if secession isn't out of bounds, operating independently from the US is definitely. no currency, no non-republican govt. no currency not made from gold or silver, no trade law. bond to privileges and immunities. barred from alliances and international/interstate trade relations. de facto.

That sounds really convincing, antagon. But seceding from that constitution supercedes compliance with it's statutes.

The bottom line is that if the southern states had known what they were getting into they would never have signed the constitution or ratified it. And the Federalist papers were an ambush. If the southerners had known that the intentions of the federalists were gonna be used as a basis for further interpretation of the constitution down the road they would have written their own confederalist papers to represent their pov and their intents as well.

 

[antagon]

yeah. that's why the south made a go for it. you can be a gentleman and get a divorce, or you can skip town. my dad, and i'll argue the south, skipped town. i think the south had a better chance seceding militarily than procedurally, so i cant blame them.

i do think the US has a right to go after that ass if you secede. it is the acts of seditious individuals working against the US and the constitution if not states breaching the contract. maybe it was secession and then invasion of neighboring territory by the union. it wouldn't matter. it was gettysburg and the like that made it what it is -- how i describe it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

That would about sum up my political views. I would also use the common term that you mentioned in the OP - fiscal conservative and social liberal.

 

[Charles_Main]

5 stars! But you left out politics entirely.

Well that is because my Politics are hard to label On this core issues I listed I would be considered a Conservative/Libertarian However on many Social Issues I would be called a Liberal.

So I can't just pick a party or Philosophy and say that's me.

Taking a guess I would say. Pragmatic Conservative Constitutionalist with Liberal tendencies on Social Issues

almost everybody posting in this thread admits from the get go that the labels don't fit and neither do the parties.

We should be organizing our own parties not relying on career political cartels to do it for us.

A great Idea that the 2 Parties in power will stop at nothing to prevent.

 

[loosecannon]

I submit that sales ( buyer's) tax is NOT regressive.
Those who earn less, spend less. Therefore those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder pay LESS in sales tax. So actually those who earn more and spend more pay a proportionate share of sales taxes.

It is regressive. Poor people spend it all, and get taxed on it all. While rich people invest and don't get taxed on earnings for decades. Rich people also save, earning interest. Rich people also give money away, getting tax deductions. Rich people also have more qualified accountants and more tax deductions.

Trust me, Warren Buffet says that he pays less federal income tax than his own secretary.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s[/ame]

Taxes, Warren Buffett, and Paying My Fair Share - NYTimes.com

In case you didn't know it he is the second wealthiest human alive.

Trust me, Warren Buffet says that he pays less federal income tax than his own secretary.
There is NO way he pays less in taxes....His percentage is probably less.The Secretary may pay 28% - 30%....and Buffet maybe 5%

There's a tremendous difference in the secretaries tax bill based on 60k salary or 5% on billions....Who pays more in the end?

No you are wrong, he pays less total federal tax than his secretary, read the link. And Google only pays 2.4% tax on it's profits from overseas business because it uses a legal mechanism called the Double Irish to avoid paying taxes.

Google Pays Only 2.4 % Tax Rate, Hoards Profits in Cayman Islands | ChattahBox News Blog

You can't make this shit up, the rich are not paying any taxes at all. Exxon paid 0% tax in 2009. Literally 0%. NONE! Not a penny.

 

[loosecannon]

yeah. that's why the south made a go for it. you can be a gentleman and get a divorce, or you can skip town. my dad, and i'll argue the south, skipped town. i think the south had a better chance seceding militarily than procedurally, so i cant blame them.

What I am saying is that it took something like 8 years to get the southern states to sign the damned thing and only then after the bill of rights was added on and esp after the 9th and 10th were added.

Had they known that it was a trap they would never have become a part of the union.

They won their independence fair and square in the revolution. They didn't know that they were being led into a trap by the federalists.

 

[antagon]

Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities - washingtonpost.com

(.177(46,000,000) = $8,142,000)/(.3($100,000) = 30,000) = 271.7 time as much tax than his secretary if he/she makes 100k/year.

 

[antagon]

yeah. i follow what you mean with the south. confederacy was always their thing. it remains a deep seeded value today. arguably it was a trick. perhaps they'd have succumb to manifest destiny early on in antibellum. or maybe we'd have lost 1812 without the south.

 

[xotoxi]

Classic Xotoxian

 

[loosecannon]

Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities - washingtonpost.com

(.177(46,000,000) = $8,142,000)/(.3($100,000) = 30,000) = 271.7 time as much tax than his secretary if he/she makes 100k/year.

OK, But it has been widely reported that Buffet only takes a very, very modest salary, far less than $46 million/year while he retains his portfolio in earnest.