Modern Governance Theory

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,283
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. The premise here is that most modern governance structures are iterations and permutations of the same view of the world....i.e., that there is some version of government control that is necessary and proper to coordinate and control the lives of individuals.
Without government dictates,.....individuals would be lost, hopeless, and unable to survive.



It boils down to this calculation:
Good intentions plus coercion equals the solution.



2. The Founders memorialized a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

In the modern world, politics has morphed into what is largely Germanic thought.....Hegel, Nietzsche, Karl Marx....finding new ways to impose tyrannical rule.


a. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).


b. And it appears in it's American form, in the attitude of the FDR supporters, as observed in the words ofA.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor:

"“[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.
Folsom and Folsom, "FDR Goes To War."




3. Which of the modern totalitarian governance schemes....Communism, Nazism, Progressivism, Socialism, Fascism, or Liberalism.....stands with the view of our Founders, individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government?

Right...none of the shameful six:
Communism, Nazism, Progressivism, Socialism, Fascism, or Liberalism.
 
You a libertarian?

Thats your argument for a sky pixie inducing good behavior as well isn't it PoliSpice? :eusa_doh: You have to have an overarching power to scare people into doing the right thing :eusa_eh: You also have to "depend" on said sky pixie into gaining entrance into some invisible kingdom as well

/end thread
 
2. The Founders memorialized a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Free market liberals at that time believed in no tariffs, yet the USA used tariffs to ward off import trade..
 
2. The Founders memorialized a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Free market liberals at that time believed in no tariffs, yet the USA used tariffs to ward off import trade..
Yes. and now the tariffs are largely gone..
Your point?
 
The Founders have had a uniform for PC, with appropriate "rights".
scan0002%202.jpg
 
2. The Founders memorialized a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Not true.
Yes...they did. The words "individual" "freedom", "liberty" etc are all over the founding documents.
Surely you are not implying the Founders intended the United States operate under a collective or communal system.
 
2. The Founders memorialized a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Free market liberals at that time believed in no tariffs, yet the USA used tariffs to ward off import trade..
Yes. and now the tariffs are largely gone..
Your point?

The Founders are gone too, dimwit. PC lies when she says they supported free markets.

btw, she's cut and pasted that same line 20 times or so, even after having it proven to her that it isn't true.
 
2. The Founders memorialized a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Free market liberals at that time believed in no tariffs, yet the USA used tariffs to ward off import trade..


To support a federal government.


No direct taxation was allowed.

  1. One reason the Articles of Confederation was replaced by the Constitution was to give the federal government the authorization to tax individuals directly, yet, even then the power to tax was limited by Article I, Section 2, which required that any direct tax be “apportioned.”
    1. A direct tax is one levied on persons or on property. An indirect tax is levied on an event, such as when a good is sold or imported or manufactured.
  2. This meant that the federal government could not impose a direct tax without first determining a specific sum to be collected from within each state in proportion to the states congressional representation.
    1. So, if NY had 9 % of the representatives in the Congress, then 9% of the revenues produced by the tax would have to come from NY.
    2. But…since both population density and property values vary widely from state to state, then, is seems, tax rate must also vary from state to state…i.e., a wealthy state would actually have a lower tax rate than a poor state to respect the apportionment requirements. In effect, this made it impossible for Congress to get the votes to pass a direct tax.
Covered in "
Hostile Takeover: Resisting Centralized Government's Stranglehold on America,"
by Matt Kibbe
 
2. The Founders memorialized a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Not true.
Yes...they did. The words "individual" "freedom", "liberty" etc are all over the founding documents.
Surely you are not implying the Founders intended the United States operate under a collective or communal system.

The Founders established strong central, federal government under the Constitution with supreme powers over the states AFTER the failed experiment of limited government under the Articles of Confederation.
 
2. The Founders memorialized a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Free market liberals at that time believed in no tariffs, yet the USA used tariffs to ward off import trade..


To support a federal government.


No direct taxation was allowed.

  1. One reason the Articles of Confederation was replaced by the Constitution was to give the federal government the authorization to tax individuals directly, yet, even then the power to tax was limited by Article I, Section 2, which required that any direct tax be “apportioned.”
    1. A direct tax is one levied on persons or on property. An indirect tax is levied on an event, such as when a good is sold or imported or manufactured.
  2. This meant that the federal government could not impose a direct tax without first determining a specific sum to be collected from within each state in proportion to the states congressional representation.
    1. So, if NY had 9 % of the representatives in the Congress, then 9% of the revenues produced by the tax would have to come from NY.
    2. But…since both population density and property values vary widely from state to state, then, is seems, tax rate must also vary from state to state…i.e., a wealthy state would actually have a lower tax rate than a poor state to respect the apportionment requirements. In effect, this made it impossible for Congress to get the votes to pass a direct tax.

Protectionism is not free trade. Why do you insist on copying and pasting that line into your posts when you know it is not true?
 
The Founders have had a uniform for PC, with appropriate "rights".
scan0002%202.jpg
hey...genius....We have evolved from the patriarchal society....IN fact in many cultures today, though, especially in the Muslim culture, men are still dominant and women are subservient. So much so, women are considered to be mere chattel.
The irony here is you libs have your noses buried in the ass of Islam.
if you don't like the way things are run here, I suggest you find somewhere else to reside.
 
2. The Founders memorialized a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Free market liberals at that time believed in no tariffs, yet the USA used tariffs to ward off import trade..


To support a federal government.


No direct taxation was allowed.

  1. One reason the Articles of Confederation was replaced by the Constitution was to give the federal government the authorization to tax individuals directly, yet, even then the power to tax was limited by Article I, Section 2, which required that any direct tax be “apportioned.”
    1. A direct tax is one levied on persons or on property. An indirect tax is levied on an event, such as when a good is sold or imported or manufactured.
  2. This meant that the federal government could not impose a direct tax without first determining a specific sum to be collected from within each state in proportion to the states congressional representation.
    1. So, if NY had 9 % of the representatives in the Congress, then 9% of the revenues produced by the tax would have to come from NY.
    2. But…since both population density and property values vary widely from state to state, then, is seems, tax rate must also vary from state to state…i.e., a wealthy state would actually have a lower tax rate than a poor state to respect the apportionment requirements. In effect, this made it impossible for Congress to get the votes to pass a direct tax.
Yet a republican showed the Constitution how to have direct taxation...

The excise whiskey tax of 1791 charged by the gallon, equally in every state..
 
The Founders have had a uniform for PC, with appropriate "rights".
scan0002%202.jpg
hey...genius....We have evolved from the patriarchal society....IN fact in many cultures today, though, especially in the Muslim culture, men are still dominant and women are subservient. So much so, women are considered to be mere chattel.
The irony here is you libs have your noses buried in the ass of Islam.
if you don't like the way things are run here, I suggest you find somewhere else to reside.

Muslim countries have had more women presidents than the US has.
 
The Founders have had a uniform for PC, with appropriate "rights".
scan0002%202.jpg
hey...genius....We have evolved from the patriarchal society....IN fact in many cultures today, though, especially in the Muslim culture, men are still dominant and women are subservient. So much so, women are considered to be mere chattel.
The irony here is you libs have your noses buried in the ass of Islam.
if you don't like the way things are run here, I suggest you find somewhere else to reside.
Prove I have my nose implanted in Islam's azz.....I care for no religion..
 
2. The Founders memorialized a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Not true.
Yes...they did. The words "individual" "freedom", "liberty" etc are all over the founding documents.
Surely you are not implying the Founders intended the United States operate under a collective or communal system.

The Founders established strong central, federal government under the Constitution with supreme powers over the states AFTER the failed experiment of limited government under the Articles of Confederation.
Oh please. Go ahead, find this and post it here.
Last time I checked the 10th amendment had not yet been repealed.
Why is it you prefer an all encompassing intrusive and oppressive central planning type government?
 
2. The Founders memorialized a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Free market liberals at that time believed in no tariffs, yet the USA used tariffs to ward off import trade..


To support a federal government.


No direct taxation was allowed.

  1. One reason the Articles of Confederation was replaced by the Constitution was to give the federal government the authorization to tax individuals directly, yet, even then the power to tax was limited by Article I, Section 2, which required that any direct tax be “apportioned.”
    1. A direct tax is one levied on persons or on property. An indirect tax is levied on an event, such as when a good is sold or imported or manufactured.
  2. This meant that the federal government could not impose a direct tax without first determining a specific sum to be collected from within each state in proportion to the states congressional representation.
    1. So, if NY had 9 % of the representatives in the Congress, then 9% of the revenues produced by the tax would have to come from NY.
    2. But…since both population density and property values vary widely from state to state, then, is seems, tax rate must also vary from state to state…i.e., a wealthy state would actually have a lower tax rate than a poor state to respect the apportionment requirements. In effect, this made it impossible for Congress to get the votes to pass a direct tax.
Yet a republican showed the Constitution how to have direct taxation...

The excise whiskey tax of 1791 charged by the gallon, equally in every state..

If the Founders believed in free trade they wouldn't have set up a system that necessitated using tariffs as a major revenue source.
 

Forum List

Back
Top