CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Olde Europe]

Good to have you on board, albeit only for part of solution to the problem, and good to see there's at least some consensus as to the diagnosis.

This doesn't mean business or corporations are 'untouchable', any more than the first amendment makes religions untouchable. They still have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. But it does mean that government must be prohibited from legislating to promote, or persecute, economic "interests". It means government can't use the power of law to manipulate our economic decisions, regardless of the role we play (consumer, employee, manufacturer, employer, etc...).

What's wrong with, say, enforcing higher mileage for cars? Standards for consumer credit? Requiring producers that their product does not endanger the health of consumers? Limiting toxic or otherwise damaging exhaust or waste water? Safeguarding the nation's aquifers? Regulating the information on consumers corporations can store and use? All designed to "manipulate our economic decisions" in one way or another, and I find no sound reason to dismiss either of the examples.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good to have you on board, albeit only for part of solution to the problem, and good to see there's at least some consensus as to the diagnosis.

This doesn't mean business or corporations are 'untouchable', any more than the first amendment makes religions untouchable. They still have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. But it does mean that government must be prohibited from legislating to promote, or persecute, economic "interests". It means government can't use the power of law to manipulate our economic decisions, regardless of the role we play (consumer, employee, manufacturer, employer, etc...).

What's wrong with, say, enforcing higher mileage for cars? Standards for consumer credit? Requiring producers that their product does not endanger the health of consumers? Limiting toxic or otherwise damaging exhaust or waste water? Safeguarding the nation's aquifers? Regulating the information on consumers corporations can store and use? All designed to "manipulate our economic decisions" in one way or another, and I find no sound reason to dismiss either of the examples.

Do you see no difference between enforcing higher mileage for cars and regulations that protect people in areas they cannot realistically control themselves?

 

[Olde Europe]

Do you see no difference between enforcing higher mileage for cars and regulations that protect people in areas they cannot realistically control themselves?

Realistically speaking, I would reject the very notion that there's a two-bit division between areas of individual "control" and "no control". Moreover, given the informational disadvantage consumers have, compared to corporations, I reject the notion of any "control" that isn't in large part dependent on government interference, requiring producers to inform their customers. Thinking about your question, I find it's going nowhere really fast, setting up a straw man, muddying the waters.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, I don't know how you put that into a Constitution either but I do know that unfettered short term greed is a major problem that needs to be addressed and curbed. I am just as happy to use alternative means to achieve the same end. Raising taxes on both the corporations and the executives/shareholders who have harmed We the People and the environment until the situation is redressed works just as well in my opinion.

I am pretty much with you on all of the above. Yet, I guess we'll be lucky if we can, collectively, fend off efforts at dismantling even more of the Constitutional and legal safeguards against short-termist greed and profiteering. One of the main tools in the "dismantlers'" quiver is, of course, the perennial, shrill hyperventilation about government's oppressive and ever increasing powers in the hope that an ever greater proportion of the population will go along with restraining and curtailing governments, and - instead of those powers falling back to the people - the corporatocracy reigning supreme over the lives of We the People, our water, soil, resources, and the air we breathe.

How does this sound?

Congress shall make no law allowing anyone other than a natural born, or naturalized, citizen to participate in elections in any manner except to restrict campaign contributions to a level that is easily affordable by everyone. Congress shall make no law enabling the funding of campaigns, participation in elections, or otherwise influencing the outcome of elections except those that pertain to natural born, or naturalized, citizens.

 

[dblack]

Good to have you on board, albeit only for part of solution to the problem, and good to see there's at least some consensus as to the diagnosis.

This doesn't mean business or corporations are 'untouchable', any more than the first amendment makes religions untouchable. They still have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. But it does mean that government must be prohibited from legislating to promote, or persecute, economic "interests". It means government can't use the power of law to manipulate our economic decisions, regardless of the role we play (consumer, employee, manufacturer, employer, etc...).

What's wrong with, say, enforcing higher mileage for cars? Standards for consumer credit? Requiring producers that their product does not endanger the health of consumers? Limiting toxic or otherwise damaging exhaust or waste water? Safeguarding the nation's aquifers? Regulating the information on consumers corporations can store and use? All designed to "manipulate our economic decisions" in one way or another, and I find no sound reason to dismiss either of the examples.

These are excellent examples and will prompt us to get into more detail about what I'm talking about. First of all, let me say that I have no qualms with the necessary role of government in protecting the commons - those resources we agree to hold as common public property (the atmosphere, the aquifer, etc...). Laws that prohibit excessive pollution, or abuse of those common resources aren't what I would consider economic regulations. These kinds of laws are not mandating our personal decisions other than to prohibit abuse of public property. The first few examples, however, do fall under the kind of legislation I'd like to prohibit at a constitutional level. And the last one is something I honestly haven't given a lot of thought to. It's definitely something we need to work out.

"What's wrong with, say, enforcing higher mileage for cars? Standards for consumer credit? Requiring producers [to ensure] that their product does not endanger the health of consumers?"

These are really good examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about because, as you point out, they seem innocuous - even beneficial. But they're corrosive nonetheless, and not merely because of the precedent they set (I'll try to avoid the slippery slope argument here, though I do think it's plenty valid). My first, and perhaps more predictable, objection to these kinds of laws is based on the violation of the basic right of individuals to decide for themselves how they want to spend their money, indeed, how they want to live their lives. This gets into the question of when government, even if its representing the democratic will of the people, should have the power to dictate our personal decisions.

The nature of law is to force conformity of behavior. I don't believe such power is justified unless diversity is truly intolerable. Often that's the case. We don't want people, as a rule, deciding for themselves if murder is ok, and relying on civil suits to penalizing wrongful death. The consequences are too great (death is permanent), and the circumstances where killing someone might be justified are too rare. So we force conformity and prohibit all killing, leaving it to the courts to deal with the exceptions. Mandating conformity can make sense in other cases as well, when consensus is nearly universal, and the sacrifice of liberty is minimal - basic traffic laws, for example. But in general, I don't think we should indulge this kind of power merely for the convenience of the majority. And that's what I see going on in these three examples.

If most of us want higher mileage cars, we can 'vote' with our dollars simply by buying higher mileage cars. If we don't want to do business with creditors who don't adhere to our preferred standards, we can make that choice without forcing those standards on others. Likewise, if we don't want to use products that are dangerous, we can avoid that as well - without prohibiting that choice to others who might be comfortable with the risks. The government's role in these case should be limited to preventing fraud and ensuring transparency. As long as people are dealing with each other honestly, and not misrepresenting what is offered for trade, the government has no business interfering in our personal decisions in this way.

My second objection to these kinds of regulations addresses our agreed upon concern with business interests colluding with government. The ability to 'steer' society from a centralized authority is overwhelmingly tempting to the greedy and ambitious. I assume you envision some way to ensure that such power is only ever used for "good", but (setting aside the subjective nature of "good", which probably falls more under my first objection) even the best of intentions will involve unintended consequences. And special interest groups, most notably businesses and trade organizations, will do everything they can to ensure that those "unintended consequences" work in their favor. When controlling the implementation of regulation can mean billions of dollars in profit and loss, there's simply no way the general welfare of voters can compete.

If an automobile manufacturer can avoid expensive retooling by keeping mileage standards in line with their current models, you can bet they'll pursue such an end vigorously. Likewise, if bumping them up a little will hamper a competitor, they'll push for that. The problem with this dynamic isn't just that it encourages lobbying, but that it sets up our government as a 'deal maker', a broker that parses out favors to those who 'play ball', and takes them away from those who don't. That is the essence of corporatism.

In addition, because these kinds of regulations need to be flexible and often involve intensive detail, they're not usually created by elected legislators, but by appointed bureaucrats. These bureaucrats have even less incentive to respect the general welfare, and are that much more likely to be responsive to the desires of business and organized interest groups. Often they're even active members of the markets they're asked to regulate, creating obvious conflict of interest. The point I'm circling here is that this kind of regulatory control over society is inevitably the target of those who wish to control us. Their goals for society will only overlap with the good of society to the extent necessary to mollify voters.

 

[Olde Europe]

How does this sound?

Congress shall make no law allowing anyone other than a natural born, or naturalized, citizen to participate in elections in any manner except to restrict campaign contributions to a level that is easily affordable by everyone. Congress shall make no law enabling the funding of campaigns, participation in elections, or otherwise influencing the outcome of elections except those that pertain to natural born, or naturalized, citizens.

Again, I agree with the gist of it, but fear your language suffers from horse-left-the-barn syndrome, for if Congress does nothing, the situation remains as is.

Were we to rewrite the language, in a way so as to state a Constitutional prohibition directly, it might criminalise, say, an interview on tv with a foreign national mentioning any current or prospective candidate (dis-) approvingly. That, I guess, isn't what you intended, right?

I agree that only citizens ought to be allowed to contribute to campaigns, and only in reasonable amounts (whatever that is). I'd further think about limiting contributions to candidates running in the contributor's district, and to limit the funding of politics-related advertising to personally owned funds by natural persons (but am not certain about that). Certainly, every clearly politically active entity should lose its charitable status, and be required to publish the names of donors along with the amounts donated. No idea how to get that into appropriate language.

Again, I find our struggles with Constitutional language highly instructive.

_______________________________

If an automobile manufacturer can avoid expensive retooling by keeping mileage standards in line with their current models, you can bet they'll pursue such an end vigorously. Likewise, if bumping them up a little will hamper a competitor, they'll push for that. The problem with this dynamic isn't just that it encourages lobbying, but that it sets up our government as a 'deal maker', a broker that parses out favors to those who 'play ball', and takes them away from those who don't. That is the essence of corporatism.

I find a lot of thought in that posting, and maybe will have a second look tomorrow. Just in short, for now, as you correctly assumed, I disagree with most of what you say. The ever-present distrust of government is plainly overwhelming, and, or so I find, bordering on the unreasonable. The remedy to unreasonable, or intrusive regulation is not to rewrite the Constitution to remove the power to regulate, but to throw the bums out who have written it, for if you remove the power to regulate, you have also removed all protections based on this regulatory power. That cannot possibly be in the interest of the common welfare. At some point you plainly you have to trust that a power, any power, along with juridical checks and the restraining influence of ever-looming elections will keep intrusions in reasonable bounds. A non-government that does neither regulate nor protect you can behold in Somalia. That isn't, with all due respect for some healthy distrust regarding power in general, and regulatory power in particular, what anyone can hope for.

 

[Derideo_Te]

FYI for everyone who still wants to go down the Libertarian Utopia route, it looks like you have already achieved your intended goal.

Princeton Study U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy—namely, that it no longer exists.

Asking "[w]ho really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy," they write, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

As one illustration, Gilens and Page compare the political preferences of Americans at the 50th income percentile to preferences of Americans at the 90th percentile as well as major lobbying or business groups. They find that the government—whether Republican or Democratic—more often follows the preferences of the latter group rather than the first.

The researches note that this is not a new development caused by, say, recent Supreme Court decisions allowing more money in politics, such as Citizens United or this month's ruling onMcCutcheon v. FEC. As the data stretching back to the 1980s suggests, this has been a long term trend, and is therefore harder for most people to perceive, let alone reverse.

"Ordinary citizens," they write, "might often be observed to 'win' (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail."​

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem with D.T.'s conclusion drawn from that presumed Princeton study is that the oligarchy will be found mostly in the modern permanent political class. But then since he seems to believe that it is wrong that some of us are suspicious or wary of or disenchanted with big government, he will probably side with the leftwing in that the evil ones who have created this situation are the private sector and that government had nothing to do with it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The problem with D.T.'s conclusion drawn from that presumed Princeton study is that the oligarchy will be found mostly in the modern permanent political class. But then since he seems to believe that it is wrong that some of us are suspicious or wary of or disenchanted with big government, he will probably side with the leftwing in that the evil ones who have created this situation are the private sector and that government had nothing to do with it.

What was that you said about being dishonest about what others have actually posted?

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem with D.T.'s conclusion drawn from that presumed Princeton study is that the oligarchy will be found mostly in the modern permanent political class. But then since he seems to believe that it is wrong that some of us are suspicious or wary of or disenchanted with big government, he will probably side with the leftwing in that the evil ones who have created this situation are the private sector and that government had nothing to do with it.

What was that you said about being dishonest about what others have actually posted?

Did you or did you not dismiss my post referring to Peter Schwiezer's book "Extortion" by describing it something to the effect of (paraphrased) total bullshit?

Have you or have you not criticized or referred in an uncomplimentary manner those of us who have protested too big, too intrusive federal government as the worst offender in the erosion of our options, choices, opportunities, and personal liberties?

Have you or have you not defended big government social programs as proper and defensible? Is there any federal social program that you think would be handled better by the states and/or local communities and/or the private sector? Are there any that you think the federal government should not be doing?

Have you or have you not claimed corporate America as a primary villain that a new constitution should address?

If, after reviewing your posts, you can say you did not say these things, I will apologize for what you comments have SEEMED to me to be saying. Note, that I did NOT say that you said them, but I'm pretty sure I can go back and find statements of yours to back up what you seemed to be saying to me.

You cannot go back and find statements of mine to support what you have accused me of saying when I have protested being mischaracterized or misrepresented.

 

[dblack]

FYI for everyone who still wants to go down the Libertarian Utopia route, it looks like you have already achieved your intended goal.

Princeton Study U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy—namely, that it no longer exists.

Asking "[w]ho really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy," they write, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

As one illustration, Gilens and Page compare the political preferences of Americans at the 50th income percentile to preferences of Americans at the 90th percentile as well as major lobbying or business groups. They find that the government—whether Republican or Democratic—more often follows the preferences of the latter group rather than the first.

The researches note that this is not a new development caused by, say, recent Supreme Court decisions allowing more money in politics, such as Citizens United or this month's ruling onMcCutcheon v. FEC. As the data stretching back to the 1980s suggests, this has been a long term trend, and is therefore harder for most people to perceive, let alone reverse.

"Ordinary citizens," they write, "might often be observed to 'win' (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail."​

I think I've explained why, in other posts, but the bolded portion is minimized by libertarian policies. The very reason economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have so much influence on policy is because that policy has become their lifeblood. They invest more and more of their energies in controlling policy because policy has a greater and greater effect on their bottom line.

 

[dblack]

How does this sound?

Congress shall make no law allowing anyone other than a natural born, or naturalized, citizen to participate in elections in any manner except to restrict campaign contributions to a level that is easily affordable by everyone. Congress shall make no law enabling the funding of campaigns, participation in elections, or otherwise influencing the outcome of elections except those that pertain to natural born, or naturalized, citizens.

It sounds odd - and I think I figured out why. How does Congress make a law "allowing" something? That seems to assume that everything is prohibited other than what is expressly allowed. Which doesn't seem entirely out of synch with authoritarian politics, but is that really what you meant to express?

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you see no difference between enforcing higher mileage for cars and regulations that protect people in areas they cannot realistically control themselves?

Realistically speaking, I would reject the very notion that there's a two-bit division between areas of individual "control" and "no control". Moreover, given the informational disadvantage consumers have, compared to corporations, I reject the notion of any "control" that isn't in large part dependent on government interference, requiring producers to inform their customers. Thinking about your question, I find it's going nowhere really fast, setting up a straw man, muddying the waters.

Well, if it is muddying the waters, why did you bring it up?

I have no problem with government at any level INFORMING the public of what they should know about any product. That indeed would be in the interest of the general welfare and could eliminate any disadvantage the general public would have in getting information they need. I have no problem whatsoever with the federal government requiring any product that will be sold across state lines to fully disclose necessary information the public must know about that product in order to know whether it is safe to use. Certainly food products sold across state lines should be required to include information of what is contained in those food products.

I have much more problem with a federal government dictating what the food products MUST contain or meddling with intrastate commerce that the states and the people can manage quite adequately themselves.

But if I want a hummer and drive it six blocks to work every day, how am I less responsible or patriotic than the person who commutes 60 miles in his Ford fusion each day? How is the big family who needs a big, less fuel efficient vehicle to transport everybody at once less responsible than those driving more fuel efficient cars, but need two or three of them to transport all the people the same distance?

Restrict the federal government to those necessary or useful things that that the people cannot realistically do on their own, and then leave the people alone to live their lives and work out any other problems through their state and local governments or via private initiative. When the federal government assumes sufficient power to micromanage so much of our lives, it has power to dictate anything it wants to dictate to any of us.

 

[Olde Europe]

Restrict the federal government to those necessary or useful things that that the people cannot realistically do on their own, and then leave the people alone to live their lives and work out any other problems through their state and local governments or via private initiative. When the federal government assumes sufficient power to micromanage so much of our lives, it has power to dictate anything it wants to dictate to any of us.

Quite frankly, you're sounding like a grounded 14-year old, making a too-smart-by-half case against her overly zealous parents. When the federal government does nothing like micromanage any lives, but instead regulations create areas of liberty in the first place, for without them your life, your every wake hour would be consumed with fending off predators of all kinds. From defending against inevitably forming monopolies bankrupting your business to making sure on your own that your food isn't toxic, regulations make lives easier, create situations in which informed choices are possible, and at the same time create the reliable environments in which planning a life beyond the next hour is at all possible. Your debate of liberty as the result of getting rid of disruptive, oppressive daddy-government is nothing short of juvenile, and your ideologically blinkered debate of 50 states each setting up their own EPA and FDA (just for starters), thus creating more bureaucrats rather than less, is patently otherworldly in its naivete.

 

[Foxfyre]

Restrict the federal government to those necessary or useful things that that the people cannot realistically do on their own, and then leave the people alone to live their lives and work out any other problems through their state and local governments or via private initiative. When the federal government assumes sufficient power to micromanage so much of our lives, it has power to dictate anything it wants to dictate to any of us.

Quite frankly, you're sounding like a grounded 14-year old, making a too-smart-by-half case against her overly zealous parents. When the federal government does nothing like micromanage any lives, but instead regulations create areas of liberty in the first place, for without them your life, your every wake hour would be consumed with fending off predators of all kinds. From defending against inevitably forming monopolies bankrupting your business to making sure on your own that your food isn't toxic, regulations make lives easier, create situations in which informed choices are possible, and at the same time create the reliable environments in which planning a life beyond the next hour is at all possible. Your debate of liberty as the result of getting rid of disruptive, oppressive daddy-government is nothing short of juvenile, and your ideologically blinkered debate of 50 states each setting up their own EPA and FDA (just for starters), thus creating more bureaucrats rather than less, is patently otherworldly in its naivete.

This is so silly in response to anything I have argued that I will just refer you to my previous posts. I have long defended RICO and anti trust laws enforced by the federal government. I have consistently supported the federal government regulating those necessary things that cannot be realistically regulated at the state and local level.

NOTE TO EVERYBODY, I will ask that all participating in this thread make note of the following truths and at least attempt to acknowledge them:

1. Saying that the federal government be restricted to specific tasks is NOT saying that there should be no federal government.

2. Restricting the federal government from making laws and regulation outside of its assigned authority is NOT the same thing as saying there is no reason to have laws and regulation.

3. Restricting the federal government from using the people's money to dispense benevolence or charity is NOT the same thing as saying there is no need for benevolence or charity.

4. Restricting the federal government from helping or designating or mandating winners and losers in commerce and industry is NOT the same thing as supporting destructive monopolies or unethical business practices.

I will also note that as the discussion proceeds, those on the left continue to reinforce my opinion that they simply cannot and/or will not argue a concept without ad hominem, red herrings, building straw men, non sequitur, or engaging in personal insults.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good to have you on board, albeit only for part of solution to the problem, and good to see there's at least some consensus as to the diagnosis.

This doesn't mean business or corporations are 'untouchable', any more than the first amendment makes religions untouchable. They still have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. But it does mean that government must be prohibited from legislating to promote, or persecute, economic "interests". It means government can't use the power of law to manipulate our economic decisions, regardless of the role we play (consumer, employee, manufacturer, employer, etc...).

What's wrong with, say, enforcing higher mileage for cars? Standards for consumer credit? Requiring producers that their product does not endanger the health of consumers? Limiting toxic or otherwise damaging exhaust or waste water? Safeguarding the nation's aquifers? Regulating the information on consumers corporations can store and use? All designed to "manipulate our economic decisions" in one way or another, and I find no sound reason to dismiss either of the examples.

These are excellent examples and will prompt us to get into more detail about what I'm talking about. First of all, let me say that I have no qualms with the necessary role of government in protecting the commons - those resources we agree to hold as common public property (the atmosphere, the aquifer, etc...). Laws that prohibit excessive pollution, or abuse of those common resources aren't what I would consider economic regulations. These kinds of laws are not mandating our personal decisions other than to prohibit abuse of public property. The first few examples, however, do fall under the kind of legislation I'd like to prohibit at a constitutional level. And the last one is something I honestly haven't given a lot of thought to. It's definitely something we need to work out.

"What's wrong with, say, enforcing higher mileage for cars? Standards for consumer credit? Requiring producers [to ensure] that their product does not endanger the health of consumers?"

These are really good examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about because, as you point out, they seem innocuous - even beneficial. But they're corrosive nonetheless, and not merely because of the precedent they set (I'll try to avoid the slippery slope argument here, though I do think it's plenty valid). My first, and perhaps more predictable, objection to these kinds of laws is based on the violation of the basic right of individuals to decide for themselves how they want to spend their money, indeed, how they want to live their lives. This gets into the question of when government, even if its representing the democratic will of the people, should have the power to dictate our personal decisions.

The nature of law is to force conformity of behavior. I don't believe such power is justified unless diversity is truly intolerable. Often that's the case. We don't want people, as a rule, deciding for themselves if murder is ok, and relying on civil suits to penalizing wrongful death. The consequences are too great (death is permanent), and the circumstances where killing someone might be justified are too rare. So we force conformity and prohibit all killing, leaving it to the courts to deal with the exceptions. Mandating conformity can make sense in other cases as well, when consensus is nearly universal, and the sacrifice of liberty is minimal - basic traffic laws, for example. But in general, I don't think we should indulge this kind of power merely for the convenience of the majority. And that's what I see going on in these three examples.

If most of us want higher mileage cars, we can 'vote' with our dollars simply by buying higher mileage cars. If we don't want to do business with creditors who don't adhere to our preferred standards, we can make that choice without forcing those standards on others. Likewise, if we don't want to use products that are dangerous, we can avoid that as well - without prohibiting that choice to others who might be comfortable with the risks. The government's role in these case should be limited to preventing fraud and ensuring transparency. As long as people are dealing with each other honestly, and not misrepresenting what is offered for trade, the government has no business interfering in our personal decisions in this way.

My second objection to these kinds of regulations addresses our agreed upon concern with business interests colluding with government. The ability to 'steer' society from a centralized authority is overwhelmingly tempting to the greedy and ambitious. I assume you envision some way to ensure that such power is only ever used for "good", but (setting aside the subjective nature of "good", which probably falls more under my first objection) even the best of intentions will involve unintended consequences. And special interest groups, most notably businesses and trade organizations, will do everything they can to ensure that those "unintended consequences" work in their favor. When controlling the implementation of regulation can mean billions of dollars in profit and loss, there's simply no way the general welfare of voters can compete.

If an automobile manufacturer can avoid expensive retooling by keeping mileage standards in line with their current models, you can bet they'll pursue such an end vigorously. Likewise, if bumping them up a little will hamper a competitor, they'll push for that. The problem with this dynamic isn't just that it encourages lobbying, but that it sets up our government as a 'deal maker', a broker that parses out favors to those who 'play ball', and takes them away from those who don't. That is the essence of corporatism.

In addition, because these kinds of regulations need to be flexible and often involve intensive detail, they're not usually created by elected legislators, but by appointed bureaucrats. These bureaucrats have even less incentive to respect the general welfare, and are that much more likely to be responsive to the desires of business and organized interest groups. Often they're even active members of the markets they're asked to regulate, creating obvious conflict of interest. The point I'm circling here is that this kind of regulatory control over society is inevitably the target of those who wish to control us. Their goals for society will only overlap with the good of society to the extent necessary to mollify voters.

You make a good point here. There is definitely a role for the federal government in requiring transparency of what we are buying when we buy products most especially when those products are sold across state lines. The people should be able to know of any hazards in the products they buy when such hazards are not otherwise obvious.

Example: It is appropriate for the federal government to regulate reasonable standards of sanitation and wholesomeness for chickens and eggs sold throughout a multi-state region or throughout the whole country. It is NOT reasonable for the federal government to regulate the free range chickens or eggs sold off the family farm to the farmer's surrounding neighbors UNLESS some contagious or communicable condition has been reported that warrants quarantine. Mad Cow disease comes to mind as something the federal government should contain and also regulate to prevent so that it does not spread throughout the nation's food supply.

Certainly the benefits of CAFE standards or low flush toilets or the kinds of light bulbs that are allowed to be manufactured etc. must be weighed against the ability of the people to choose what is most appropriate for their lifestyle.

The rule of thumb as I see it is a balance between what the people have no reasonable ability to know and decide on their own and the ability of people to live as they choose.

 

[Foxfyre]

FYI for everyone who still wants to go down the Libertarian Utopia route, it looks like you have already achieved your intended goal.

Princeton Study U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy—namely, that it no longer exists.

Asking "[w]ho really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy," they write, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

As one illustration, Gilens and Page compare the political preferences of Americans at the 50th income percentile to preferences of Americans at the 90th percentile as well as major lobbying or business groups. They find that the government—whether Republican or Democratic—more often follows the preferences of the latter group rather than the first.

The researches note that this is not a new development caused by, say, recent Supreme Court decisions allowing more money in politics, such as Citizens United or this month's ruling onMcCutcheon v. FEC. As the data stretching back to the 1980s suggests, this has been a long term trend, and is therefore harder for most people to perceive, let alone reverse.

"Ordinary citizens," they write, "might often be observed to 'win' (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail."​

I think I've explained why, in other posts, but the bolded portion is minimized by libertarian policies. The very reason economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have so much influence on policy is because that policy has become their lifeblood. They invest more and more of their energies in controlling policy because policy has a greater and greater effect on their bottom line.

Could it be precisely that over the years the federal government has meddled in too much policy and regulation that has opened the floodgates and made lobbying such a lucrative industry for so many?

Is it possible that too much federal regulation has benefitted the big powerful corporations who can better absorb such regulation and has been an important factor in forcing the Mom & Pop stores and small family farms out of business?

And then there is the other factor that merits at least consideration. Is the fact that the federal government has assumed authority to use its powers to benefit or punish specific industries how the permanent political class developed in Washington? And rather than corporate misconduct or misuse of power, it is that permanent political class that is the driving force behind so-called 'corporate welfare'? That it is the permanent political class that evokes millions of dollars in political contributions by threatening the bottom line of those with deep pockets?

Again I refer to my thread discussing that very thing:
BOOK REVIEW EXTORTION How Politicians Extract Your Money Buy Votes and Line The US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Olde Europe]

This is so silly in response to anything I have argued that I will just refer you to my previous posts. I have long defended RICO and anti trust laws enforced by the federal government. I have consistently supported the federal government regulating those necessary things that cannot be realistically regulated at the state and local level.

You know, it's actually pretty simple: Either the States are being willing and capable to pick up the tab for everything you'd like the Federal government not to do, and you'd get up to 50 parallel bureaucracies, which would be much bigger, collectively, that the previous federal one. Or, they are either not willing or not capable, and in these respects, ranging from safety- and fairness-related regulations to ensuring the well-being of those who cannot take care for it on their own, then there's no (formerly) Federal government. That's logically inescapable. That you cannot, or for some other reason won't, see your ideology's consequences is your prerogative, of course. That you react to having all that pointed out to you by slandering a whole group is predictable, and highly unbecoming, and your list of things you won't acknowledge saying or implying, whilst saying and implying exactly that which you deny, just re-enforces my impression that you won't, under any circumstances, face the consequences of your proposals.

I find, that's a pity, because it debases your argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is so silly in response to anything I have argued that I will just refer you to my previous posts. I have long defended RICO and anti trust laws enforced by the federal government. I have consistently supported the federal government regulating those necessary things that cannot be realistically regulated at the state and local level.

You know, it's actually pretty simple: Either the States are being willing and capable to pick up the tab for everything you'd like the Federal government not to do, and you'd get up to 50 parallel bureaucracies, which would be much bigger, collectively, that the previous federal one. Or, they are either not willing or not capable, and in these respects, ranging from safety- and fairness-related regulations to ensuring the well-being of those who cannot take care for it on their own, then there's no (formerly) Federal government. That's logically inescapable. That you cannot, or for some other reason won't, see your ideology's consequences is your prerogative, of course. That you react to having all that pointed out to you by slandering a whole group is predictable, and highly unbecoming, and your list of things you won't acknowledge saying or implying, whilst saying and implying exactly that which you deny, just re-enforces my impression that you won't, under any circumstances, face the consequences of your proposals.

I find, that's a pity, because it debases your argument.

Just for once, is it possible that you could make an argument without slandering me? Without misquoting, mischaracterizing, or mistating what I have posted?

The prerogative in issue here is whether people are to have liberty to make their own choices, make their own successes, make their own mistakes, live their lives as they choose short of violating the rights of others, or whether the government will do that better than they will do for themselves. The argument is not for perfection or even getting it right. The argument is that over the long term, the people are a better judge of what is good for them than any power-hungry government is likely to be.

As for the states picking up the tab for the functions we feel inappropriate for the federal government to do, those of us who love liberty more than we love the nanny state would leave it up to the people of the state to decide if they are willing to pay for the state to take on a responsibility. If they are not, so be it. It should not be up to somebody outside that state to tell them they have to do it.

All the money comes out of the same pot. It is the work ethic, efforts, risk taking, creativity, initiative, and ingenuity of the American people that produce the money for the government to use or who are obligated to pay off any debt accrued by the government. The people should have the power of determining how much they are willing to allow the government to have. That is liberty. Liberty is not the government telling the people how much they get to keep.

Keeping most of the money in the state in the first place eliminates a very expensive and increasingly unmanageable layer of bureaucracy that dilutes the value of the money by a substantial percentage.

We have an $18+ trillion dollar debt that is growing by mega millions each and every day. It is unsustainable. We have to do it differently or we will collapse under the weight of it.

 

[HenryBHough]

Imagine the hundreds of billions Americans could save on their home mortgages each year if a new Constitution adopted Sharia Law rules concerning interest. But would it be wrong to cherry-pick just that provision?