Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh, horseshit. Conservatives oppose progressives because their ideas have been repeatedly shown by history to be failures and to cause great damage.This is the basic reason why conservatives hate progressives: it has nothing to do with the positions progressives take on the issues per se, but the fact that progressives, unlike conservatives, dont adhere blindly to sanctioned dogma.
Speaking of fantasies...In essence, progressives believe that no idea or solution should be rejected out of hand simply because that idea or solution comes from the wrong political camp, as practiced by conservatives. Solutions should be based on the facts and evidence, indicating what will work, regardless its political origin.
Throwing Individual Rights and Property Rights under the bus is not a good sign, more like an end of the road sign. It's dangerous.Modern liberals claim the Founding Fathers were exactly like they are because they were Classical Liberals, and modern liberalism starts with an L, too.
Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.
So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.
Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.
Early laws regulating corporations in America
*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.
*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).
*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.
*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.
*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.
*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.
*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.
*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).
*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.
*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).
*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.
*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.
*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.
*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.
The Early Role of Corporations in America
The Legacy of the Founding Parents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What caused the Progressive movement
We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.
It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.
The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me
I love it when someone argues I do not understand history, and then proceeds to prove they do not by making invalid comparisons to history in an attempt to make their point.
Early corporations were restricted because they were not part of the market, not because the Founders did not believe in self regulation of the market. The corporations you view as being highly regulated were actually legal monopolies, and the charters were actually government writs that prevented other companies from competing with those corporations.
Why anyone would think that is a good idea is beyond me.
Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.
So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.
Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.
Early laws regulating corporations in America
*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.
*Corporations licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).
*The state legislature could revoke a corporations charter if it misbehaved.
*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.
*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldnt break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were just doing their job when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.
*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.
*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.
*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted in perpetuity, as is now the practice).
*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.
*Corporations real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).
*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.
*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.
*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.
*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.
The Early Role of Corporations in America
The Legacy of the Founding Parents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What caused the Progressive movement
We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.
It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.
The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me
I love it when someone argues I do not understand history, and then proceeds to prove they do not by making invalid comparisons to history in an attempt to make their point.
Early corporations were restricted because they were not part of the market, not because the Founders did not believe in self regulation of the market. The corporations you view as being highly regulated were actually legal monopolies, and the charters were actually government writs that prevented other companies from competing with those corporations.
Why anyone would think that is a good idea is beyond me.
If you really understand history, you would know that the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against corporate tax cuts for the largest transnational corporation in existence in those days. It would have lowered the price of tea for the colonists, but it would undermine the local colonialist's small businesses.
The word 'corporation' appears nowhere in the Constitution. Our founding fathers had no desire to give corporations any power or control over their new government or We, the People.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
In a letter to Edmund Randolph on September 30, 1783, Madison wrote, Wherever Commerce prevails there will be an inequality of wealth, and wherever [an inequality of wealth prevails] a simplicity of manners must decline.
When commerce was taken over by large corporate or religious enterprises, Madison knew exactly where he stood. In 1817 he wrote, There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by...corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.29
Can Madison be any more CLEAR???
If you really understand history, you would know that the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against corporate tax cuts for the largest transnational corporation in existence in those days. It would have lowered the price of tea for the colonists, but it would undermine the local colonialist's small businesses.
The word 'corporation' appears nowhere in the Constitution. Our founding fathers had no desire to give corporations any power or control over their new government or We, the People.
Specious, circular logic sophistry....Par for the course.The word 'corporation' appears nowhere in the Constitution. Our founding fathers had no desire to give corporations any power or control over their new government or We, the People.
Established: Effective June 1, 1871, by an act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419), abolishing the Corporations of the City of Washington, DC, and Georgetown, DC, and the Levy Court of Washington County, DC; and replacing them with a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.
Specious, circular logic sophistry....Par for the course.The word 'corporation' appears nowhere in the Constitution. Our founding fathers had no desire to give corporations any power or control over their new government or We, the People.
Of course, if they were so vehemently anti-corporation, why is it that they created the corporation known as District of Columbia, back in 1871?
From the National Archives:
Established: Effective June 1, 1871, by an act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419), abolishing the Corporations of the City of Washington, DC, and Georgetown, DC, and the Levy Court of Washington County, DC; and replacing them with a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.
Records of the Government of the District of Columbia
What a huge pile of Beck Crappe...LOL!
If you really understand history, you would know that the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against corporate tax cuts for the largest transnational corporation in existence in those days. It would have lowered the price of tea for the colonists, but it would undermine the local colonialist's small businesses.
The word 'corporation' appears nowhere in the Constitution. Our founding fathers had no desire to give corporations any power or control over their new government or We, the People.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
In a letter to Edmund Randolph on September 30, 1783, Madison wrote, Wherever Commerce prevails there will be an inequality of wealth, and wherever [an inequality of wealth prevails] a simplicity of manners must decline.
When commerce was taken over by large corporate or religious enterprises, Madison knew exactly where he stood. In 1817 he wrote, There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by...corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.
Can Madison be any more CLEAR???
Oh, horseshit. Conservatives oppose progressives because their ideas have been repeatedly shown by history to be failures and to cause great damage.
Modern liberals have little interest in liberty.Throwing Individual Rights and Property Rights under the bus is not a good sign, more like an end of the road sign. It's dangerous.Modern liberals claim the Founding Fathers were exactly like they are because they were Classical Liberals, and modern liberalism starts with an L, too.
Oh, horseshit. Conservatives oppose progressives because their ideas have been repeatedly shown by history to be failures and to cause great damage.
Yes and no. Look at the economic growth of the liberal postwar years (45-73). Study the liberal policies in play when America saw unprecedented growth in the 50s and 60s.
1) Massive, historically unprecedented deficit spending on war manufacturing. (103% of GDP). This was the largest government spending project in history. It proves the Obama's stimulus was far to small. America needed a WWII spending response.
2) Stabilization of financial markets through tight regulations like Glass-Stegall (giving us 3 decades without a major financial crisis, until Reagan came to power and started deregulating the S&Ls.)
3) Support of unions, which created the wage base necessary to support vigorous consumption.
4) Massive government support of the middle class consumer, including a Fed which was charged with stimulating the economy during downturns for the purpose of maintaining full employment (so there was not spiraling job loss). Couple this with government intervention to give the middle class an affordable cost of living, especially in the area of education and health care. (again: all of these things lead to increased consumer spending, which fueled fantastic economic growth)
5) Effective barriers to trade liberalization which prevented capital from completely abandoning American labor for 3rd world Asian & Mexican sweatshop labor.
6) Rigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws, including the Sherman Act, which prevented too-big-to fail mega-mergers. -which anti-trust laws prevented immovable monopolies from forming over sectors like energy and health care.
7) Progressive taxation, so that the immense profits made possible by the public investment in infrastructure and education was recycled down to middle class financial security, so that the workers could buy what they produced.
... All of which lead to the formation of the most powerful middle class in world history.
...all of which gave the middle class more purchasing power than today's neoliberal policies provide, which policies are built atop cutting the wages, benefits, and entitlements of the great bulk of average consumers.
(Side note: The amazing purchasing power created during the postwar years forced the capitalist to innovate and add jobs)
The compromise between capital and labor set up the most virtuous cycle America has ever seen, until Reagan started to chip away at every policy that strengthened the middle class consumer (so he could give tax breaks to the job shippers)
As wages went down in the 80s (to boost profits on top), we made the slow transition to a credit card economy. Morning in America was put on an Amex Card. The debt amassed in the 80s and 90s is finally coming home to roost.
There is no way America can return to the postwar prosperity without rebuilding the middle class consumer, who no longer has the wages and benefits necessary to consume. This means that American capital, in return for its subsidies, bailouts, and the benefits it receives from public investments in infrastructure (and the Pentagon, which stabilizes its global markets), will have to pay its considerable debt to society. Postwar liberalism found a way to prevent profits from congealing in the hands of a narrow elite, who used their financial leverage to consolidate power over markets, politics, and media. Postwar liberalism was not all bad - some of the ideas worked, as is evidenced by the economic growth of the 50s & 60s, the golden age capitalism
or the merged entity collaborating with the remaining firms in the market (defined as “coordinated effects” could limit competition by charging higher prices, lowering output, reducing product quality, or slowing innovation.If you really understand history, you would know that the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against corporate tax cuts for the largest transnational corporation in existence in those days. It would have lowered the price of tea for the colonists, but it would undermine the local colonialist's small businesses.
The word 'corporation' appears nowhere in the Constitution. Our founding fathers had no desire to give corporations any power or control over their new government or We, the People.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
In a letter to Edmund Randolph on September 30, 1783, Madison wrote, “Wherever Commerce prevails there will be an inequality of wealth, and wherever [an inequality of wealth prevails] a simplicity of manners must decline.”
When commerce was taken over by large corporate or religious enterprises, Madison knew exactly where he stood. In 1817 he wrote, “There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by...corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”
Can Madison be any more CLEAR???
The word idiot does not appear in the Constitution either, yet you are here.
Can you tell me how anything you just posted contradicts my point that corporations were government sanctioned monopolies? Yet, for some reason, you want to go back to that, which makes you worse than an idiot, it makes you deranged.
If you really understand history, you would know that the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against corporate tax cuts for the largest transnational corporation in existence in those days. It would have lowered the price of tea for the colonists, but it would undermine the local colonialist's small businesses.
The word 'corporation' appears nowhere in the Constitution. Our founding fathers had no desire to give corporations any power or control over their new government or We, the People.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
In a letter to Edmund Randolph on September 30, 1783, Madison wrote, Wherever Commerce prevails there will be an inequality of wealth, and wherever [an inequality of wealth prevails] a simplicity of manners must decline.
When commerce was taken over by large corporate or religious enterprises, Madison knew exactly where he stood. In 1817 he wrote, There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by...corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.
Can Madison be any more CLEAR???
The word idiot does not appear in the Constitution either, yet you are here.
Can you tell me how anything you just posted contradicts my point that corporations were government sanctioned monopolies? Yet, for some reason, you want to go back to that, which makes you worse than an idiot, it makes you deranged.
Still, He is making good points, in a civil manner. Why discourage that?
The word idiot does not appear in the Constitution either, yet you are here.
Can you tell me how anything you just posted contradicts my point that corporations were government sanctioned monopolies? Yet, for some reason, you want to go back to that, which makes you worse than an idiot, it makes you deranged.
Still, He is making good points, in a civil manner. Why discourage that?
The regulations he is touting that limited corporate charters in length also gave those corporations a state backed monopoly that made competition illegal. Madison speaking against corporations means he was speaking up against a regulated market system that prevented competition and innovation, not against what we think of when we hear the same word today. I addressed that in a previous post, and he repeated the exact same talking points, and then tried to claim constitutional authority for his position by making a specious comparison.
Why encourage that?
The word idiot does not appear in the Constitution either, yet you are here.
Can you tell me how anything you just posted contradicts my point that corporations were government sanctioned monopolies? Yet, for some reason, you want to go back to that, which makes you worse than an idiot, it makes you deranged.
Still, He is making good points, in a civil manner. Why discourage that?
The regulations he is touting that limited corporate charters in length also gave those corporations a state backed monopoly that made competition illegal. Madison speaking against corporations means he was speaking up against a regulated market system that prevented competition and innovation, not against what we think of when we hear the same word today. I addressed that in a previous post, and he repeated the exact same talking points, and then tried to claim constitutional authority for his position by making a specious comparison.
Why encourage that?
Still, He is making good points, in a civil manner. Why discourage that?
The regulations he is touting that limited corporate charters in length also gave those corporations a state backed monopoly that made competition illegal. Madison speaking against corporations means he was speaking up against a regulated market system that prevented competition and innovation, not against what we think of when we hear the same word today. I addressed that in a previous post, and he repeated the exact same talking points, and then tried to claim constitutional authority for his position by making a specious comparison.
Why encourage that?
I had decided to dismiss your absolute blather. But you felt a need to continue your ideological gymnastics. So in our founder's day government completely controlled corporations.
