CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Derideo_Te]

A citizenry that is paid by government to look the other way isn't going to be watchful, alert, or attentive re overreach by that government. And a citizenry fearful of retaliation by their government is far less likely to challenge it.

You are destroying your own endeavour here. Who would even contemplate writing a Constitution for a bunch that is so stupid as to let themselves be bribed with their own money to act against their own interest, and is so easily frightened? Were that true, even a Constitution that is absolutely perfect would undoubtedly fail.

In the end, given your attitude towards government, a Constitution consistent with your convictions would consist of exactly one paragraph, and one phrase:

"Article I - Government, as it is the source of all evil, is hereby abolished."

_____________________________________________

 

[PratchettFan]

marketOTE="Foxfyre, post: 10367355, member: 6847"]And......back on topic for those who would like to discuss the concept re the thread topic rather than make this a battle of semantics, definitions, personal criticism and otherwise derail the thread.....let me quote from one of my favorite modern libertarians (little "L"):

From Walter William's essay "Economic Miracle":

. . .Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling. Let's think about it.

The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items — canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.

But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk — people are greedy.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain.". . . .
Economic Miracle by Walter E. Williams on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
​

This is the best argument I have ever seen for how the individual, free to pursue the American dream or whatever and wherever he is free to look after his own interests, will serve the whole in a far more beneficial and efficient manner than will a government trying a micromanage the process. And wherever government intervenes into the process, it will almost always have unintended negative consequences.

Allowing people to be 'greedy"; i.e. look to their own interests, be who and what they are short of infringing on the rights of others as a noble thing sounds so wrong to those who favor more government power and intervention. And it sounds so right to those who love liberty and fear excessive government power and interference.

And as I have argued, I believe both are just as 'greedy' when it comes to looking to their own interests. So I would prefer to put the power with the individual to further the common good than with the government that has a far less commendable track record on that.

My proposals for a better Constitution would better define and specify limits on what the federal government is allowed to do.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that you assume people will work together to accomplish this and that is simply not true and has never been true. If it were true we would not have laws in the first place. And so any new constitution has to take into account that an unfettered free market will result in a few companies buying out the resources needed for new companies to come into competition. How does a new manufacturing firm stay in business if their competition owns the transportation they need to get raw materials? Do you think laws against such things just arose by chance? Read, for example, the history of the "company town" and the use of company script. Read about how companies essentially bought out law enforcement and used them as private armies to keep workers in line. This was reality for us and one of the reasons we have the government we do, because what you are suggesting did not work. People have not changed so there is no reason to think it will work if brought back. Don't bother with philosophy, read history.

Any purist system does not work, because all systems are run by human beings who will always act in their own self-interest. People in government are no different. Government intervention in the public market creates competing powers, each interested in its own spheres of influence, and thus prevents either one from taking control. The day either does is the day you can kiss your rights, inalienable or not, goodbye.

 

[Foxfyre]

A citizenry that is paid by government to look the other way isn't going to be watchful, alert, or attentive re overreach by that government. And a citizenry fearful of retaliation by their government is far less likely to challenge it.

You are destroying your own endeavour here. Who would even contemplate writing a Constitution for a bunch that is so stupid as to let themselves be bribed with their own money to act against their own interest, and is so easily frightened? Were that true, even a Constitution that is absolutely perfect would undoubtedly fail.

In the end, given your attitude towards government, a Constitution consistent with your convictions would consist of exactly one paragraph, and one phrase:

"Article I - Government, as it is the source of all evil, is hereby abolished."

This is what makes debate of concepts so difficult: those who insist on interpreting an argument as you did here. I have not ever said government is the source of all evil or any evil. My argument is that the use of government for self-serving purposes in a way that violates the unalienable rights of the people or takes away their liberties is evil. Calling this phenomena 'the government' is a matter of convenience.

The Constitution was written for people that the Founders entrusted with the ability to govern themselves far more competently than any government would do that for them. That concept was eroded and continues to erode when some people found out they could use government to take what others had and use it for their own benefit. And because it has been such a gradual process with so many seemingly unimportant baby steps it was never sufficiently challenged.

And you would be more honest in your criticism if you keep what you quote of my remarks in their full context rather than try to make them seem to intend something more than obviously intended.

 

[Foxfyre]

Quote function got screwed up, so to fix it:

Foxfyre wrote

And......back on topic for those who would like to discuss the concept re the thread topic rather than make this a battle of semantics, definitions, personal criticism and otherwise derail the thread.....let me quote from one of my favorite modern libertarians (little "L"):

From Walter William's essay "Economic Miracle":

. . .Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling. Let's think about it.

The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items — canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.

But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk — people are greedy.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain.". . . .
Economic Miracle by Walter E. Williams on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
​

This is the best argument I have ever seen for how the individual, free to pursue the American dream or whatever and wherever he is free to look after his own interests, will serve the whole in a far more beneficial and efficient manner than will a government trying a micromanage the process. And wherever government intervenes into the process, it will almost always have unintended negative consequences.

Allowing people to be 'greedy"; i.e. look to their own interests, be who and what they are short of infringing on the rights of others as a noble thing sounds so wrong to those who favor more government power and intervention. And it sounds so right to those who love liberty and fear excessive government power and interference.

And as I have argued, I believe both are just as 'greedy' when it comes to looking to their own interests. So I would prefer to put the power with the individual to further the common good than with the government that has a far less commendable track record on that.

My proposals for a better Constitution would better define and specify limits on what the federal government is allowed to do.

PratchettFan wrote:

The problem is that you assume people will work together to accomplish this and that is simply not true and has never been true. If it were true we would not have laws in the first place. And so any new constitution has to take into account that an unfettered free market will result in a few companies buying out the resources needed for new companies to come into competition. How does a new manufacturing firm stay in business if their competition owns the transportation they need to get raw materials? Do you think laws against such things just arose by chance? Read, for example, the history of the "company town" and the use of company script. Read about how companies essentially bought out law enforcement and used them as private armies to keep workers in line. This was reality for us and one of the reasons we have the government we do, because what you are suggesting did not work. People have not changed so there is no reason to think it will work if brought back. Don't bother with philosophy, read history.

Any purist system does not work, because all systems are run by human beings who will always act in their own self-interest. People in government are no different. Government intervention in the public market creates competing powers, each interested in its own spheres of influence, and thus prevents either one from taking control. The day either does is the day you can kiss your rights, inalienable or not, goodbye.

I assume that people can and do work together to accomplish this as Walter Williams explained with his illustration of the super market and can of tuna. If you disagree with the point he made there, please provide a rationale for why he is wrong. Don't try to change the subject with an argument that he or I have EVER said that no laws are necessary as neither of us have ever said or argued that.

 

[PratchettFan]

Quote function got screwed up, so to fix it:

Foxfyre wrote

And......back on topic for those who would like to discuss the concept re the thread topic rather than make this a battle of semantics, definitions, personal criticism and otherwise derail the thread.....let me quote from one of my favorite modern libertarians (little "L"):

From Walter William's essay "Economic Miracle":

. . .Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling. Let's think about it.

The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items — canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.

But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk — people are greedy.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain.". . . .
Economic Miracle by Walter E. Williams on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
​

This is the best argument I have ever seen for how the individual, free to pursue the American dream or whatever and wherever he is free to look after his own interests, will serve the whole in a far more beneficial and efficient manner than will a government trying a micromanage the process. And wherever government intervenes into the process, it will almost always have unintended negative consequences.

Allowing people to be 'greedy"; i.e. look to their own interests, be who and what they are short of infringing on the rights of others as a noble thing sounds so wrong to those who favor more government power and intervention. And it sounds so right to those who love liberty and fear excessive government power and interference.

And as I have argued, I believe both are just as 'greedy' when it comes to looking to their own interests. So I would prefer to put the power with the individual to further the common good than with the government that has a far less commendable track record on that.

My proposals for a better Constitution would better define and specify limits on what the federal government is allowed to do.

PratchettFan wrote:

The problem is that you assume people will work together to accomplish this and that is simply not true and has never been true. If it were true we would not have laws in the first place. And so any new constitution has to take into account that an unfettered free market will result in a few companies buying out the resources needed for new companies to come into competition. How does a new manufacturing firm stay in business if their competition owns the transportation they need to get raw materials? Do you think laws against such things just arose by chance? Read, for example, the history of the "company town" and the use of company script. Read about how companies essentially bought out law enforcement and used them as private armies to keep workers in line. This was reality for us and one of the reasons we have the government we do, because what you are suggesting did not work. People have not changed so there is no reason to think it will work if brought back. Don't bother with philosophy, read history.

Any purist system does not work, because all systems are run by human beings who will always act in their own self-interest. People in government are no different. Government intervention in the public market creates competing powers, each interested in its own spheres of influence, and thus prevents either one from taking control. The day either does is the day you can kiss your rights, inalienable or not, goodbye.

I assume that people can and do work together to accomplish this as Walter Williams explained with his illustration of the super market and can of tuna. If you disagree with the point he made there, please provide a rationale for why he is wrong. Don't try to change the subject with an argument that he or I have EVER said that no laws are necessary as neither of us have ever said or argued that.

I did explain the rationale and you said this; "So I would prefer to put the power with the individual to further the common good than with the government that has a far less commendable track record on that." I take you at your word. If you didn't mean that, please explain what you did mean.

I do not disagree with what Williams said, I disagree with the conclusion you take from it. Take the power from the government to regulate the market and what you end up with is an oligarchy. That isn't philosophy, it is a realistic acceptance of human nature. If you are not proposing to take the power of the government to regulate the market, then why change the Constitution?

 

[Olde Europe]

This is what makes debate of concepts so difficult: those who insist on interpreting an argument as you did here. I have not ever said government is the source of all evil or any evil. My argument is that the use of government for self-serving purposes in a way that violates the unalienable rights of the people or takes away their liberties is evil. Calling this phenomena 'the government' is a matter of convenience.

The Constitution was written for people that the Founders entrusted with the ability to govern themselves far more competently than any government would do that for them. That concept was eroded and continues to erode when some people found out they could use government to take what others had and use it for their own benefit. And because it has been such a gradual process with so many seemingly unimportant baby steps it was never sufficiently challenged.

Yeah, that was a bit of hyperbole to make you aware that you haven gone to such lengths to discredit the current government that you seem to demolish the very idea of government. Your continuous depiction of government and government workers as self-serving, greedy, essentially corrupt denigrates millions of people in the U.S., quite a few of them dedicated to save you in case of an emergency, teaching your children, removing your trash, repairing your streets, making sure that the street lights are on at night, making sure that the food you eat doesn't kill you, and the medicine you take doesn't cause you to grow hair on your forefront, amongst a myriad of other things. Convenience or no, words have meanings, Foxfyre, and your hyperbole is no better than mine.

 

[Foxfyre]

Quote function got screwed up, so to fix it:

Foxfyre wrote

And......back on topic for those who would like to discuss the concept re the thread topic rather than make this a battle of semantics, definitions, personal criticism and otherwise derail the thread.....let me quote from one of my favorite modern libertarians (little "L"):

From Walter William's essay "Economic Miracle":

. . .Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling. Let's think about it.

The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items — canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.

But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk — people are greedy.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain.". . . .
Economic Miracle by Walter E. Williams on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
​

This is the best argument I have ever seen for how the individual, free to pursue the American dream or whatever and wherever he is free to look after his own interests, will serve the whole in a far more beneficial and efficient manner than will a government trying a micromanage the process. And wherever government intervenes into the process, it will almost always have unintended negative consequences.

Allowing people to be 'greedy"; i.e. look to their own interests, be who and what they are short of infringing on the rights of others as a noble thing sounds so wrong to those who favor more government power and intervention. And it sounds so right to those who love liberty and fear excessive government power and interference.

And as I have argued, I believe both are just as 'greedy' when it comes to looking to their own interests. So I would prefer to put the power with the individual to further the common good than with the government that has a far less commendable track record on that.

My proposals for a better Constitution would better define and specify limits on what the federal government is allowed to do.

PratchettFan wrote:

The problem is that you assume people will work together to accomplish this and that is simply not true and has never been true. If it were true we would not have laws in the first place. And so any new constitution has to take into account that an unfettered free market will result in a few companies buying out the resources needed for new companies to come into competition. How does a new manufacturing firm stay in business if their competition owns the transportation they need to get raw materials? Do you think laws against such things just arose by chance? Read, for example, the history of the "company town" and the use of company script. Read about how companies essentially bought out law enforcement and used them as private armies to keep workers in line. This was reality for us and one of the reasons we have the government we do, because what you are suggesting did not work. People have not changed so there is no reason to think it will work if brought back. Don't bother with philosophy, read history.

Any purist system does not work, because all systems are run by human beings who will always act in their own self-interest. People in government are no different. Government intervention in the public market creates competing powers, each interested in its own spheres of influence, and thus prevents either one from taking control. The day either does is the day you can kiss your rights, inalienable or not, goodbye.

I assume that people can and do work together to accomplish this as Walter Williams explained with his illustration of the super market and can of tuna. If you disagree with the point he made there, please provide a rationale for why he is wrong. Don't try to change the subject with an argument that he or I have EVER said that no laws are necessary as neither of us have ever said or argued that.

I did explain the rationale and you said this; "So I would prefer to put the power with the individual to further the common good than with the government that has a far less commendable track record on that." I take you at your word. If you didn't mean that, please explain what you did mean.

I do not disagree with what Williams said, I disagree with the conclusion you take from it. Take the power from the government to regulate the market and what you end up with is an oligarchy. That isn't philosophy, it is a realistic acceptance of human nature. If you are not proposing to take the power of the government to regulate the market, then why change the Constitution?

The market should be regulated only to the extent that is necessary to prevent states or entities that cross state lines from unethically doing physical or economic violence to each other or to deal with unethical or dangerous trade practices of other nations with this one. How the market otherwise works should not be within the authority of the federal government to regulate and the government should otherwise leave the market strictly alone to operate effectively as only a free market can and no government can manage anywhere near as effectively.

That is the conclusion I take from it. I suggest you can find no statement of mine that even suggests much less says otherwise.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is what makes debate of concepts so difficult: those who insist on interpreting an argument as you did here. I have not ever said government is the source of all evil or any evil. My argument is that the use of government for self-serving purposes in a way that violates the unalienable rights of the people or takes away their liberties is evil. Calling this phenomena 'the government' is a matter of convenience.

The Constitution was written for people that the Founders entrusted with the ability to govern themselves far more competently than any government would do that for them. That concept was eroded and continues to erode when some people found out they could use government to take what others had and use it for their own benefit. And because it has been such a gradual process with so many seemingly unimportant baby steps it was never sufficiently challenged.

Yeah, that was a bit of hyperbole to make you aware that you haven gone to such lengths to discredit the current government that you seem to demolish the very idea of government. Your continuous depiction of government and government workers as self-serving, greedy, essentially corrupt denigrates millions of people in the U.S., quite a few of them dedicated to save you in case of an emergency, teaching your children, removing your trash, repairing your streets, making sure that the street lights are on at night, making sure that the food you eat doesn't kill you, and the medicine you take doesn't cause you to grow hair on your forefront, amongst a myriad of other things. Convenience or no, words have meanings, Foxfyre, and your hyperbole is no better than mine.

It is not the responsibility of the federal government to see to it that the street lights are on at night or that there are street lights in my community at all nor have I had any comment on what role the federal government should have in food inspections or the medicine we take. So I am not engaging in hyperbole there but you are.

If you have an argument that those in the federal government are not self-serving, let's hear it. Otherwise don't be so quick to accuse/judge me because I see it that way. In recent decades I can point to a whole lot of stuff they've done for themselves and I can't point to anything they have done in which they gave up anything for our benefit. Can you?

 

[Olde Europe]

The problem is that you assume people will work together to accomplish this and that is simply not true and has never been true. If it were true we would not have laws in the first place. And so any new constitution has to take into account that an unfettered free market will result in a few companies buying out the resources needed for new companies to come into competition. How does a new manufacturing firm stay in business if their competition owns the transportation they need to get raw materials? Do you think laws against such things just arose by chance? Read, for example, the history of the "company town" and the use of company script. Read about how companies essentially bought out law enforcement and used them as private armies to keep workers in line. This was reality for us and one of the reasons we have the government we do, because what you are suggesting did not work. People have not changed so there is no reason to think it will work if brought back. Don't bother with philosophy, read history.

Any purist system does not work, because all systems are run by human beings who will always act in their own self-interest. People in government are no different. Government intervention in the public market creates competing powers, each interested in its own spheres of influence, and thus prevents either one from taking control. The day either does is the day you can kiss your rights, inalienable or not, goodbye.

You could have taken this a whole step further pointing out that that simplistic tuna can "miracle" wouldn't happen without extensive government interference, ranging from making sure the tuna trawler actually finds home (GPS) to government built roads to market regulations ensuring proper competition to oversight over transporters making sure the tuna is cold all steps of the way and to police making sure that the supermarket isn't ransacked every other day. So, that tuna miracle out of free cooperation of free people out of free will (or whatever) is just crap.

And that's setting aside that it is patently inexplicable why self-serving people are, supposedly, either concentrated in government, or without effect on the public good elsewhere. There's no way I can see how this could be made plausible. That's further setting aside that, of course, people cooperate when driven by a shared profit motive, but that doesn't serve the public good (unless enforced by proper regulation), merely their profits. It doesn't ensure tuna won't be overfished, it doesn't ensure the tuna is safe to eat, it doesn't ensure workers earn a salary, and it doesn't ensure that workers aren't being killed in droves in collapsing factories. That's public good. The availability of tuna and corporations turning a profit isn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Social market capitalism is far preferable to an unregulated market.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is what makes debate of concepts so difficult: those who insist on interpreting an argument as you did here. I have not ever said government is the source of all evil or any evil. My argument is that the use of government for self-serving purposes in a way that violates the unalienable rights of the people or takes away their liberties is evil. Calling this phenomena 'the government' is a matter of convenience.

The Constitution was written for people that the Founders entrusted with the ability to govern themselves far more competently than any government would do that for them. That concept was eroded and continues to erode when some people found out they could use government to take what others had and use it for their own benefit. And because it has been such a gradual process with so many seemingly unimportant baby steps it was never sufficiently challenged.

Yeah, that was a bit of hyperbole to make you aware that you haven gone to such lengths to discredit the current government that you seem to demolish the very idea of government. Your continuous depiction of government and government workers as self-serving, greedy, essentially corrupt denigrates millions of people in the U.S., quite a few of them dedicated to save you in case of an emergency, teaching your children, removing your trash, repairing your streets, making sure that the street lights are on at night, making sure that the food you eat doesn't kill you, and the medicine you take doesn't cause you to grow hair on your forefront, amongst a myriad of other things. Convenience or no, words have meanings, Foxfyre, and your hyperbole is no better than mine.

It is not the responsibility of the federal government to see to it that the street lights are on at night or that there are street lights in my community at all nor have I had any comment on what role the federal government should have in food inspections or the medicine we take. So I am not engaging in hyperbole there but you are.

If you have an argument that those in the federal government are not self-serving, let's hear it. Otherwise don't be so quick to accuse/judge me because I see it that way. In recent decades I can point to a whole lot of stuff they've done for themselves and I can't point to anything they have done in which they gave up anything for our benefit. Can you?

"If you have an argument that those in the federal government are not self-serving, let's hear it. "

Ironic coming from someone who believes that the private sector can do no evil but the government OF the people and FOR the people is "self-serving".

Are the people who ensure that you and family can safely fly anywhere in the country safely "self-serving"?

Are the people who ensure that nuclear plants operate safely "self-serving"?

Are the people serving in the military "self-serving"?

Are the people working at the CDC "self-serving"?

Where do YOU find these "self serving" government workers?

 

[Olde Europe]

It is not the responsibility of the federal government to see to it that the street lights are on at night or that there are street lights in my community at all nor have I had any comment on what role the federal government should have in food inspections or the medicine we take. So I am not engaging in hyperbole there but you are.

If you have an argument that those in the federal government are not self-serving, let's hear it. Otherwise don't be so quick to attack me because I see it that way. In recent decades I can point to a whole lot of stuff they've done for themselves and I can't point to anything they have done in which they gave up anything for our benefit. Can you?

Are you honestly of the opinion that there's a charitable corporation that switches on street lights? And no, we were talking "government" here, not "federal" government. You declare, without express exception, government to be "self-serving". I am demonstrating that "government" is serving you in a myriad of ways.

As to what "they", that would be the officials of the U.S. enlightened self-government, have given up: For starters, they have given up on forbidding abortions (whilst the TeaPartyers, with Republicans in tow, are busy reversing that), they are in the process of giving up on forbidding weed, and they have reduced tax rates from around 90% to about a third of that. How's that for starters?

__________________________________________________

Social market capitalism is far preferable to an unregulated market.

Since I am meanwhile in a bit of a bickering mode: Without regulation there is no such thing as a "market". Without regulation there is no such things as property, and no such thing as a contract, or a purchase, just that which you can hang on to tooth and nail. Life, as nasty, brutish, and short as one can possibly imagine, beckons.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is that you assume people will work together to accomplish this and that is simply not true and has never been true. If it were true we would not have laws in the first place. And so any new constitution has to take into account that an unfettered free market will result in a few companies buying out the resources needed for new companies to come into competition. How does a new manufacturing firm stay in business if their competition owns the transportation they need to get raw materials? Do you think laws against such things just arose by chance? Read, for example, the history of the "company town" and the use of company script. Read about how companies essentially bought out law enforcement and used them as private armies to keep workers in line. This was reality for us and one of the reasons we have the government we do, because what you are suggesting did not work. People have not changed so there is no reason to think it will work if brought back. Don't bother with philosophy, read history.

Any purist system does not work, because all systems are run by human beings who will always act in their own self-interest. People in government are no different. Government intervention in the public market creates competing powers, each interested in its own spheres of influence, and thus prevents either one from taking control. The day either does is the day you can kiss your rights, inalienable or not, goodbye.

You could have taken this a whole step further pointing out that that simplistic tuna can "miracle" wouldn't happen without extensive government interference, ranging from making sure the tuna trawler actually finds home (GPS) to government built roads to market regulations ensuring proper competition to oversight over transporters making sure the tuna is cold all steps of the way and to police making sure that the supermarket isn't ransacked every other day. So, that tuna miracle out of free cooperation of free people out of free will (or whatever) is just crap.

And that's setting aside that it is patently inexplicable why self-serving people are, supposedly, either concentrated in government, or without effect on the public good elsewhere. There's no way I can see how this could be made plausible. That's further setting aside that, of course, people cooperate when driven by a shared profit motive, but that doesn't serve the public good (unless enforced by proper regulation), merely their profits. It doesn't ensure tuna won't be overfished, it doesn't ensure the tuna is safe to eat, it doesn't ensure workers earn a salary, and it doesn't ensure that workers aren't being killed in droves in collapsing factories. That's public good. The availability of tuna and corporations turning a profit isn't.

And you are assuming that without gover

It is not the responsibility of the federal government to see to it that the street lights are on at night or that there are street lights in my community at all nor have I had any comment on what role the federal government should have in food inspections or the medicine we take. So I am not engaging in hyperbole there but you are.

If you have an argument that those in the federal government are not self-serving, let's hear it. Otherwise don't be so quick to attack me because I see it that way. In recent decades I can point to a whole lot of stuff they've done for themselves and I can't point to anything they have done in which they gave up anything for our benefit. Can you?

Are you honestly of the opinion that there's a charitable corporation that switches on street lights? And no, we were talking "government" here, not "federal" government. You declare, without express exception, government to be "self-serving". I am demonstrating that "government" is serving you in a myriad of ways.

As to what "they", that would be the officials of the U.S. enlightened self-government, have given up: For starters, they have given up on forbidding abortions (whilst the TeaPartyers, with Republicans, in tow are busy reversing that), they are in the process of giving up on forbidding weed, and they have reduced tax rates from around 90% to about a third of that. How's that for starters?

The thread is about rewriting or improving a Constitution that instructs the FEDERAL government. And I have been consistently focused on that. I suggest that we all consistently focus on that.

And I will take your response that you cannot name anything in recent decades that those in the federal government have given up for our benefit. (That should not be interpreted to mean the rank and file who have no power to dictate what the government does.) I'm sure you won't mind if I set aside all those other red herrings thrown into the mix as irrelevant to that concept.

 

[dcraelin]

I think the first order of business, which is somewhat confirmed by response to my poll, is too change the structure of the legislature.
priority area for new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Disperse power .....increase the number of representatives in line with what was implied by the founders.

also, many have said the Senate should be more responsive to states interests....so restict all money in senate camapaings to that comming from the state candidates are running in.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the first order of business, which is somewhat confirmed by response to my poll, is too change the structure of the legislature.
priority area for new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Disperse power .....increase the number of representatives in line with what was implied by the founders.

also, many have said the Senate should be more responsive to states interests....so restict all money in senate camapaings to that comming from the state candidates are running in.

But why not limit what those in government can do with our money instead of limiting what we the people can do with our money?

 

[dcraelin]

I think the first order of business, which is somewhat confirmed by response to my poll, is too change the structure of the legislature.
priority area for new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Disperse power .....increase the number of representatives in line with what was implied by the founders.

also, many have said the Senate should be more responsive to states interests....so restict all money in senate camapaings to that comming from the state candidates are running in.

But why not limit what those in government can do with our money instead of limiting what we the people can do with our money?

we can do both...but first we the people havae to have some control, and now just the wealthy have control...and they feed corruption and crony dealmaking

 

[Olde Europe]

I'm sure you won't mind if I set aside all those other red herrings thrown into the mix as irrelevant to that concept.

I do mind if you declare my examples "red herrings" and throw them out without explanation or argument:

"As to what "they", that would be the officials of the U.S. enlightened self-government, have given up: For starters, they have given up on forbidding abortions (whilst the TeaPartyers, with Republicans, in tow are busy reversing that), they are in the process of giving up on forbidding weed, and they have reduced tax rates from around 90% to about a third of that. How's that for starters?"

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the first order of business, which is somewhat confirmed by response to my poll, is too change the structure of the legislature.
priority area for new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Disperse power .....increase the number of representatives in line with what was implied by the founders.

also, many have said the Senate should be more responsive to states interests....so restict all money in senate camapaings to that comming from the state candidates are running in.

But why not limit what those in government can do with our money instead of limiting what we the people can do with our money?

we can do both...but first we the people havae to have some control, and now just the wealthy have control...and they feed corruption and crony dealmaking

I disagree. I believe the less wealthy have far more power than the wealthy because those in Congress must have their vote to stay in Congress. So it is the less wealthy that Congress works really hard to keep just happy enough to keep them voting for the 'right' people. What I propose is to limit what Congress is allowed to do to or for anybody and thereby return the control to the people.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure you won't mind if I set aside all those other red herrings thrown into the mix as irrelevant to that concept.

I do mind if you declare my examples "red herrings" and throw them out without explanation or argument:

"As to what "they", that would be the officials of the U.S. enlightened self-government, have given up: For starters, they have given up on forbidding abortions (whilst the TeaPartyers, with Republicans, in tow are busy reversing that), they are in the process of giving up on forbidding weed, and they have reduced tax rates from around 90% to about a third of that. How's that for starters?"

They are red herrings because they deflect from the topic or issue at hand. If we restore the constitutional limits on the federal government then you will be dealing with the states or local communities on matters such as abortion or weed or just about any other social issue you wish to name, and what tax rates are necessary would be uniform across the country. And before you say that you WANT the federal government to dictate matters such as abortion or weed or whatever, remember a government that can dictate such matters in the way you want can also dictate matters in the way you don't want. Much better to leave such matters to more local government structures where the people's voice have much more effect.

This has nothing to do with the Tea Party or Republicans or anybody else you judge here. It has everything with whether the people or a few in government will have the power to direct all of our lives however they choose to do that. Rein in that power and minimize it and it won't really matter all that much what political party or ideological group is in power in Washington.

 

[dcraelin]

think the first order of business, which is somewhat confirmed by response to my poll, is too change the structure of the legislature.
priority area for new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Disperse power .....increase the number of representatives in line with what was implied by the founders.

also, many have said the Senate should be more responsive to states interests....so restict all money in senate camapaings to that comming from the state candidates are running in.

But why not limit what those in government can do with our money instead of limiting what we the people can do with our money?

we can do both...but first we the people havae to have some control, and now just the wealthy have control...and they feed corruption and crony dealmaking

I disagree. I believe the less wealthy have far more power than the wealthy because those in Congress must have their vote to stay in Congress. So it is the less wealthy that Congress works really hard to keep just happy enough to keep them voting for the 'right' people. What I propose is to limit what Congress is allowed to do to or for anybody and thereby return the control to the people.

really, I think youve got the cart in front of the horse