CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Montrovant]

I want to clarify what I'm getting at by contrasting the "will of the people" as represented by majority rule with the will of ALL the people as an aggregate of all our individual wills, particular in my observation that free trade represents the will of ALL the people better than government intervention.

I'm not making the "greed is good" argument. Even in a perfectly free market, people will choose to spend their money on things that arguably aren't good for them. People will get rich peddling vices. People will make money catering to delusions and insecurities. But as long as transactions aren't coerced, as long as we're not lying, cheating or stealing in the process, we're spending our money on the things we want and need. And the end result IS a product of the "will of the people", not just the the majority, but all the people combined. It doesn't exclude anyone's values in favor of conformity but, rather, includes everyone's values to the extent they are shared by others. In essence, "every vote counts".

Obviously, economic decisions aren't the only way people express their will, but they're an important aspect of it. And I think it's just as important to protect that kind of freedom as it is to protect liberties like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I'm curious as to why you think economic decisions represent the will of the entire people rather than being another form of majority rule.

For example, if a person spends their money at a particular establishment, but said establishment goes out of business because another, similar one is more popular, how is that substantially different from a majority vote in government? In either case it is the will of the majority, not the will of all, that is being represented.

Because it doesn't require the will of the majority to maintain a business. People can, and do, thrive economically catering to minorities.

There are many different analogies that could be made to show how economic decisions are no more the 'will of all the people combined' than are majority votes.

The sum of all our economic decisions produces an aggregate that includes the values of everyone. Whereas legislation passed by majority vote at best produces a single decision that everyone must conform to.

I disagree. To give another example, if someone does not want a pornography store in their neighborhood, and they don't give their money to that business, it doesn't prevent others from giving the business their money. So, if the business thrives, despite an individual withholding their own money, how are their values represented any better than in a majority vote?

If a product sold by a business is something you enjoy, and you consistently purchase it, but it is discontinued because not enough others also purchase it, how is that representing you?

Yes, some businesses thrive by catering to minorities. That in no way means that every minority is catered to or that business can and will cater to any particular minority.

So, I don't see how the will of all people is represented in economic decisions but not in the workings of a democratic or representative government. In every case, some people will be left out. It is inevitable when there are enough people involved.

 

[dblack]

I want to clarify what I'm getting at by contrasting the "will of the people" as represented by majority rule with the will of ALL the people as an aggregate of all our individual wills, particular in my observation that free trade represents the will of ALL the people better than government intervention.

I'm not making the "greed is good" argument. Even in a perfectly free market, people will choose to spend their money on things that arguably aren't good for them. People will get rich peddling vices. People will make money catering to delusions and insecurities. But as long as transactions aren't coerced, as long as we're not lying, cheating or stealing in the process, we're spending our money on the things we want and need. And the end result IS a product of the "will of the people", not just the the majority, but all the people combined. It doesn't exclude anyone's values in favor of conformity but, rather, includes everyone's values to the extent they are shared by others. In essence, "every vote counts".

Obviously, economic decisions aren't the only way people express their will, but they're an important aspect of it. And I think it's just as important to protect that kind of freedom as it is to protect liberties like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I'm curious as to why you think economic decisions represent the will of the entire people rather than being another form of majority rule.

For example, if a person spends their money at a particular establishment, but said establishment goes out of business because another, similar one is more popular, how is that substantially different from a majority vote in government? In either case it is the will of the majority, not the will of all, that is being represented.

Because it doesn't require the will of the majority to maintain a business. People can, and do, thrive economically catering to minorities.

There are many different analogies that could be made to show how economic decisions are no more the 'will of all the people combined' than are majority votes.

The sum of all our economic decisions produces an aggregate that includes the values of everyone. Whereas legislation passed by majority vote at best produces a single decision that everyone must conform to.

I disagree. To give another example, if someone does not want a pornography store in their neighborhood, and they don't give their money to that business, it doesn't prevent others from giving the business their money. So, if the business thrives, despite an individual withholding their own money, how are their values represented any better than in a majority vote?

There's no denying the majority's will is better served by majority rule. But that always leaves out the minority's interests. On the other hand, "voting with our dollars" lets everyone have an impact. So, in a town where most people don't want pornography stores, there likely won't be many - they'll certainly have a tougher time making a profit - but there's still an avenue to serve the interests of the minority who do like their porn. That's what I mean by an aggregate of everyone's values rather than imposing one set of values by law. Overall, freedom allows a more honest expression of the will of all of the people than majority rule.

If a product sold by a business is something you enjoy, and you consistently purchase it, but it is discontinued because not enough others also purchase it, how is that representing you? Yes, some businesses thrive by catering to minorities. That in no way means that every minority is catered to or that business can and will cater to any particular minority.

But It at least allows for the minority to purse their interests regardless. If majority rule outlaws your favorite product, or forces you to spend money on an alternative product you don't like (either by mandate or via government spending of your tax dollars), your interests aren't represented at all. They're forcibly overridden.

When diversity is intolerable, majority rule makes sense. But it's not, in my view, better representing the will of all the people. It's just forcing conformity to the preferences of the majority.

 

[Montrovant]

I want to clarify what I'm getting at by contrasting the "will of the people" as represented by majority rule with the will of ALL the people as an aggregate of all our individual wills, particular in my observation that free trade represents the will of ALL the people better than government intervention.

I'm not making the "greed is good" argument. Even in a perfectly free market, people will choose to spend their money on things that arguably aren't good for them. People will get rich peddling vices. People will make money catering to delusions and insecurities. But as long as transactions aren't coerced, as long as we're not lying, cheating or stealing in the process, we're spending our money on the things we want and need. And the end result IS a product of the "will of the people", not just the the majority, but all the people combined. It doesn't exclude anyone's values in favor of conformity but, rather, includes everyone's values to the extent they are shared by others. In essence, "every vote counts".

Obviously, economic decisions aren't the only way people express their will, but they're an important aspect of it. And I think it's just as important to protect that kind of freedom as it is to protect liberties like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I'm curious as to why you think economic decisions represent the will of the entire people rather than being another form of majority rule.

For example, if a person spends their money at a particular establishment, but said establishment goes out of business because another, similar one is more popular, how is that substantially different from a majority vote in government? In either case it is the will of the majority, not the will of all, that is being represented.

Because it doesn't require the will of the majority to maintain a business. People can, and do, thrive economically catering to minorities.

There are many different analogies that could be made to show how economic decisions are no more the 'will of all the people combined' than are majority votes.

The sum of all our economic decisions produces an aggregate that includes the values of everyone. Whereas legislation passed by majority vote at best produces a single decision that everyone must conform to.

I disagree. To give another example, if someone does not want a pornography store in their neighborhood, and they don't give their money to that business, it doesn't prevent others from giving the business their money. So, if the business thrives, despite an individual withholding their own money, how are their values represented any better than in a majority vote?

There's no denying the majority's will is better served by majority rule. But that always leaves out the minority's interests. On the other hand, "voting with our dollars" lets everyone have an impact. So, in a town where most people don't want pornography stores, there likely won't be many - they'll certainly have a tougher time making a profit - but there's still an avenue to serve the interests of the minority who do like their porn. That's what I mean by an aggregate of everyone's values rather than imposing one set of values by law. Overall, freedom allows a more honest expression of the will of all of the people than majority rule.

If a product sold by a business is something you enjoy, and you consistently purchase it, but it is discontinued because not enough others also purchase it, how is that representing you? Yes, some businesses thrive by catering to minorities. That in no way means that every minority is catered to or that business can and will cater to any particular minority.

But It at least allows for the minority to purse their interests regardless. If majority rule outlaws your favorite product, or forces you to spend money on an alternative product you don't like (either by mandate or via government spending of your tax dollars), your interests aren't represented at all. They're forcibly overridden.

When diversity is intolerable, majority rule makes sense. But it's not, in my view, better representing the will of all the people. It's just forcing conformity to the preferences of the majority.

How does the minority pursue their interests, as far as spending is concerned, if what they are interested in is unavailable to them?

I still see many economic situations being ruled by the majority, even if indirectly. Now certainly, government can have a more onerous impact on an individuals' life generally, and in some situations there can be more choices involved in economic choices, so more people can be represented, but still, if you want a particular product but no one manufactures it because not enough people purchase it, then you are represented no more than if you are not part of the majority in a majority vote.

I suppose, to summarize, economic decisions may be representative of more views/needs than straight majority voting, but I think your characterization of economic choices as representative of all individuals is incorrect.

 

[dblack]

How does the minority pursue their interests, as far as spending is concerned, if what they are interested in is unavailable to them?

I still see many economic situations being ruled by the majority, even if indirectly. Now certainly, government can have a more onerous impact on an individuals' life generally, and in some situations there can be more choices involved in economic choices, so more people can be represented, but still, if you want a particular product but no one manufactures it because not enough people purchase it, then you are represented no more than if you are not part of the majority in a majority vote.

I suppose, to summarize, economic decisions may be representative of more views/needs than straight majority voting, but I think your characterization of economic choices as representative of all individuals is incorrect.

Fair enough. I'm not sure I'd characterize my point of view that way anyway. I'm mostly responding to the notion the free trade results in wealth inequalities that are counter to the 'will of the people'. If people are spending their money voluntarily, then the results are, by definition, of their will. If they choose to give large amounts of their money to people who do things they appreciate, the resulting concentration of wealth is of their will. If they choose not to support labor and services they don't truly value, then that is of their will. It might not result in a society you or I consider just, but it is fairly considered the will of the people.

 

[Olde Europe]

I disagree. To give another example, if someone does not want a pornography store in their neighborhood, and they don't give their money to that business, it doesn't prevent others from giving the business their money. So, if the business thrives, despite an individual withholding their own money, how are their values represented any better than in a majority vote?

If a product sold by a business is something you enjoy, and you consistently purchase it, but it is discontinued because not enough others also purchase it, how is that representing you?

Yes, some businesses thrive by catering to minorities. That in no way means that every minority is catered to or that business can and will cater to any particular minority.

So, I don't see how the will of all people is represented in economic decisions but not in the workings of a democratic or representative government. In every case, some people will be left out. It is inevitable when there are enough people involved.

Good points all. Let me expand that a bit.

Whose will is really represented by the fact that 40% of corporate profits go to banks and other financial institutions? Whose will is represented by the fact that our mass media are overwhelmingly owned by giant corporate conglomerates? Whose will is represented by the fact that a tiny slice of the population has so much wealth as to buy the Republic? These examples demonstrate that the greed-is-good market worshippers fraudulently present market outcomes largely driven by few movers and owners as if they were brought about by consumers buying groceries, and, what is more, degrade citizens to mere consumers.

Moreover, they are trying to obscure that the formulation of the will of We, the People, concerns our humanity, our hopes and aspirations, for ourselves and our offspring, whereas market transactions and their cumulative impact represents no will, but needs, wants, economic constraints, greed, the whole short-termist shebang. These are categorically different things. And that is merely to show that equating the will of We, the people to market outcomes is just a fraud to ratify the (corporate) owners' ownership, and aims to supplant, in whole or part, the formulation of our collective political will with oligarchic, plutocratic rule.

 

[dblack]

Whose will is really represented by the fact that 40% of corporate profits go to banks and other financial institutions? Whose will is represented by the fact that our mass media are overwhelmingly owned by giant corporate conglomerates? Whose will is represented by the fact that a tiny slice of the population has so much wealth as to buy the Republic?

IF the process that resulted in each of those was composed of voluntary interactions (which, fwiw, I find very questionable), then they represent the aggregate will of everyone involved. I'm not sure why anyone would find this controversial. It seems like a fairly obvious observation. As suggested, I'm not of the delusion that our current economy rests exclusively on voluntary interactions, and I consider that a serious problem.

These examples demonstrate that the greed-is-good market worshippers fraudulently present market outcomes largely driven by few movers and owners as if they were brought about by consumers buying groceries, and, what is more, degrade citizens to mere consumers.

Mostly I agree. Our dispute, if I'm reading you correctly, is mostly with how to solve the problems of the greed corrupting the market. You seem to be more of the opinion that illicit economic power is an inherent property of free markets. And I'm saying it quite literally can't happen in a free market. Of course I understand a market will never be perfectly free; it will never be exclusively a product of voluntary interactions. But the question we face is whether we want government to work to preserve and promote economic freedom, or whether the way to deal with the greed of some is to take away the economic freedom of all.

It's a little bit like the "drug war". People point to the violence and crime associated with the drug trade as a reason for stronger prohibitions. But we're starting to realize that the the policy of prohibition is what fuels the criminal organizations in the first place. They thrive on it.

Moreover, they are trying to obscure that the formulation of the will of We, the People, concerns our humanity, our hopes and aspirations, for ourselves and our offspring, whereas market transactions and their cumulative impact represents no will, but needs, wants, economic constraints, greed, the whole short-termist shebang. These are categorically different things.

I'm not equating market transactions with the entirety of the "will of the people". Obviously, will can be expressed in many other ways. But they are part of it. They are a result of it. That's simply a matter of definition. I find the idea that needs and wants aren't a matter of will as utterly nonsensical. Needs and wants are what will is made of.

... And that is merely to show that equating the will of We, the people to market outcomes is just a fraud to ratify the (corporate) owners' ownership, and aims to supplant, in whole or part, the formulation of our collective political will with oligarchic, plutocratic rule.

Sadly, ironically, the campaign to supplant free trade with a centrally controlled economy is the most direct path to plutocracy.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Sadly, ironically, the campaign to supplant free trade with a centrally controlled economy is the most direct path to plutocracy.

No one is advocating a "centrally controlled economy".

 

[dcraelin]

That only ever represents what the majority of the people want. It's a violation of the will of everyone else. That's the problem with majority rule government. That's why we should avoid it where universal conformity isn't necessary. Letting people distribute their money as they see fit, according to their own individual values, is a far more accurate expression of the will of the people.
Agreed.

Would you agree that put into the simplest terms, it comes down to the right/ability of the people to use the resources they lawfully/ethically acquired as THEY choose to use them as opposed to somebody else having ability/authority to take those resources and use for something else?

I suppose. But I think there is a valid role for majority rule. There are circumstances where it's important for society to agree on one course and mandate conformity.

Yes. So long as our unalienable rights are protected, otherwise the only way that social contract can work at all is via majority vote. We being human beings are not often going to agree on every single issue. So whether it is to vote for what color the new carpet in the church sanctuary will be or whether to install a water system for the village or whether to ratify a new amendment for the Constitution, a majority vote is the only democratic way to go.

However, in the context of two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner, we also need to include in the debate how much one group of Americans can impose on another.

I have always thought that the property owners who will be funding the new school or whatever with property taxes should be the only ones to vote for that rather than all the non property owners having a vote in that.

And I have long thought that only tax payers should have a say about how much their taxes will be.

The one thing I haven't figured out is how to accomplish that and still have representative government rather than do everything by referendum.

u know, every one lives somewhere.....and renters generally pay more in taxes per square foot of space than owners....so your concern over voting for funding of schools is misplaced I think.

I also think you r too focused on phrase "general welfare", it maybe, perhaps, did attempt to get at spending in a formulaic way....tho I think it was just a manner of speaking,..a common phrase. What it boils down to is representation....if the Congress mirrors the will of the population closely I'd be fairly satisfied with almost anything they want to spend money on.

The reason I am focused on 'general welfare' is because of the very broad and conflicting opinions re what the phrase means. And I would hope that a new or reformed Constitution would spell out exactly what is meant by the General Welfare when we give the federal government responsibility to promote it or provide it or whatever the will of the people is in that regard. IMO, it is precisely because the term is so ambiguous in interpretation these days that we have so many of the problems we now have.

But you do make a good argument re the renters. Yes, the property taxes the property owner must pay are included in the price of the rents charged, and those renters also often have children who attend the public schools and of course they also utilize city services that everybody else utilizes. But their share of the burden of apartment dwellers is born by many while the single family property owner shoulders the whole load. So yes, all that has to factor in on who should be able to vote for property taxes.

It ultimately comes down to the one point tied up with the 'general welfare' and who pays the bills. Should those who suffer little or no consequences of a vote or who want to increase their own fortunes at the expense of everybody else be able to vote on how much taxes other people pay?

Certainly in the area of public education, the nation as a whole has long considered it a public responsibility. Everyone should have an equal vote.

 

[dblack]

Sadly, ironically, the campaign to supplant free trade with a centrally controlled economy is the most direct path to plutocracy.

No one is advocating a "centrally controlled economy".

No one? I see plenty of people advocating more central control of the economy. Feel free to split hairs at your leisure.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Sadly, ironically, the campaign to supplant free trade with a centrally controlled economy is the most direct path to plutocracy.

No one is advocating a "centrally controlled economy".

No one? I see plenty of people advocating more central control of the economy. Feel free to split hairs at your leisure.

Since you raised the claim the onus is on you to provide links to the "plenty of people advocating more central control of the economy".

 

[Foxfyre]

Would you agree that put into the simplest terms, it comes down to the right/ability of the people to use the resources they lawfully/ethically acquired as THEY choose to use them as opposed to somebody else having ability/authority to take those resources and use for something else?

I suppose. But I think there is a valid role for majority rule. There are circumstances where it's important for society to agree on one course and mandate conformity.

Yes. So long as our unalienable rights are protected, otherwise the only way that social contract can work at all is via majority vote. We being human beings are not often going to agree on every single issue. So whether it is to vote for what color the new carpet in the church sanctuary will be or whether to install a water system for the village or whether to ratify a new amendment for the Constitution, a majority vote is the only democratic way to go.

However, in the context of two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner, we also need to include in the debate how much one group of Americans can impose on another.

I have always thought that the property owners who will be funding the new school or whatever with property taxes should be the only ones to vote for that rather than all the non property owners having a vote in that.

And I have long thought that only tax payers should have a say about how much their taxes will be.

The one thing I haven't figured out is how to accomplish that and still have representative government rather than do everything by referendum.

u know, every one lives somewhere.....and renters generally pay more in taxes per square foot of space than owners....so your concern over voting for funding of schools is misplaced I think.

I also think you r too focused on phrase "general welfare", it maybe, perhaps, did attempt to get at spending in a formulaic way....tho I think it was just a manner of speaking,..a common phrase. What it boils down to is representation....if the Congress mirrors the will of the population closely I'd be fairly satisfied with almost anything they want to spend money on.

The reason I am focused on 'general welfare' is because of the very broad and conflicting opinions re what the phrase means. And I would hope that a new or reformed Constitution would spell out exactly what is meant by the General Welfare when we give the federal government responsibility to promote it or provide it or whatever the will of the people is in that regard. IMO, it is precisely because the term is so ambiguous in interpretation these days that we have so many of the problems we now have.

But you do make a good argument re the renters. Yes, the property taxes the property owner must pay are included in the price of the rents charged, and those renters also often have children who attend the public schools and of course they also utilize city services that everybody else utilizes. But their share of the burden of apartment dwellers is born by many while the single family property owner shoulders the whole load. So yes, all that has to factor in on who should be able to vote for property taxes.

It ultimately comes down to the one point tied up with the 'general welfare' and who pays the bills. Should those who suffer little or no consequences of a vote or who want to increase their own fortunes at the expense of everybody else be able to vote on how much taxes other people pay?

Certainly in the area of public education, the nation as a whole has long considered it a public responsibility. Everyone should have an equal vote.

There is still a gray area in there for me though. For sure I don't want the federal government to have authority over education. It is dangerous enough to accept that the federal government has to control the national defense, components of communication, and the money supply.

And at the local level, there is as you say the concept that everybody should have a say in education. But there is also the principle that other than the most helpless among us, those who benefit from the social contract should contribute to it.

And we still need to work out whether those who do not contribute should be able to vote for how much everybody else will contribute.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I suppose. But I think there is a valid role for majority rule. There are circumstances where it's important for society to agree on one course and mandate conformity.

Yes. So long as our unalienable rights are protected, otherwise the only way that social contract can work at all is via majority vote. We being human beings are not often going to agree on every single issue. So whether it is to vote for what color the new carpet in the church sanctuary will be or whether to install a water system for the village or whether to ratify a new amendment for the Constitution, a majority vote is the only democratic way to go.

However, in the context of two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner, we also need to include in the debate how much one group of Americans can impose on another.

I have always thought that the property owners who will be funding the new school or whatever with property taxes should be the only ones to vote for that rather than all the non property owners having a vote in that.

And I have long thought that only tax payers should have a say about how much their taxes will be.

The one thing I haven't figured out is how to accomplish that and still have representative government rather than do everything by referendum.

u know, every one lives somewhere.....and renters generally pay more in taxes per square foot of space than owners....so your concern over voting for funding of schools is misplaced I think.

I also think you r too focused on phrase "general welfare", it maybe, perhaps, did attempt to get at spending in a formulaic way....tho I think it was just a manner of speaking,..a common phrase. What it boils down to is representation....if the Congress mirrors the will of the population closely I'd be fairly satisfied with almost anything they want to spend money on.

The reason I am focused on 'general welfare' is because of the very broad and conflicting opinions re what the phrase means. And I would hope that a new or reformed Constitution would spell out exactly what is meant by the General Welfare when we give the federal government responsibility to promote it or provide it or whatever the will of the people is in that regard. IMO, it is precisely because the term is so ambiguous in interpretation these days that we have so many of the problems we now have.

But you do make a good argument re the renters. Yes, the property taxes the property owner must pay are included in the price of the rents charged, and those renters also often have children who attend the public schools and of course they also utilize city services that everybody else utilizes. But their share of the burden of apartment dwellers is born by many while the single family property owner shoulders the whole load. So yes, all that has to factor in on who should be able to vote for property taxes.

It ultimately comes down to the one point tied up with the 'general welfare' and who pays the bills. Should those who suffer little or no consequences of a vote or who want to increase their own fortunes at the expense of everybody else be able to vote on how much taxes other people pay?

Certainly in the area of public education, the nation as a whole has long considered it a public responsibility. Everyone should have an equal vote.

There is still a gray area in there for me though. For sure I don't want the federal government to have authority over education. It is dangerous enough to accept that the federal government has to control the national defense, components of communication, and the money supply.

And at the local level, there is as you say the concept that everybody should have a say in education. But there is also the principle that other than the most helpless among us, those who benefit from the social contract should contribute to it.

And we still need to work out whether those who do not contribute should be able to vote for how much everybody else will contribute.

For sure I don't want the federal government to have authority over education

Public education was a priority for the Founding Fathers. They understood that an educated population was essential for this nation to be able to govern itself. Depriving children of their birthright to an education is the path to reintroducing the Dark Ages where religions controlled all knowledge and monarchs ruled by "divine right" and could not be questioned.

But there is also the principle that other than the most helpless among us, those who benefit from the social contract should contribute to it.

And those who benefit most from the social contract should contribute the most too. Funny how that is always ignored by those who espouse the Libertarian Koch bros agenda. Oh wait, isn't paying for public education a "coercive deprivation of wealth"?

And we still need to work out whether those who do not contribute should be able to vote for how much everybody else will contribute.

And the descent into disenfranchisement continues apace. If you can't afford to pay the poll tax you can't afford to vote.

Obviously there won't be any BofR in a Libertarian Utopian Constitution.

 

[Olde Europe]

Since you raised the claim the onus is on you to provide links to the "plenty of people advocating more central control of the economy".

How would reactionaries defend the freedom to exploit and the privileges of the few, and their rule over the many, in what arguably is the most laissez-faire economy in the world without waving that decaying communist straw man in order to scare people into submission? It's always been thus:

Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes. It provides the most consistent and profound argument for why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty; agency, the prerogative of elites. Such was the threat Edmund Burke saw in the French Revolution: not merely an expropriation of property or explosion of violence but an inversion of the obligations of deference and command. "The levelers," he claimed, "only change and pervert the natural order of things."

The occupation of an hair-dresser, or of a working tallowchandler, cannot be a matter of honour to any person—to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule.​

By virtue of membership in a polity, Burke allowed, men had certain rights—to the fruits of their labor, their inheritance, education, and more. But the one right he refused to concede to all men was a "share of power, authority, and direction" they might think they ought to have "in the management of the state."​

And that's the underlying theme of instituting those who rule the markets as governing the many allegedly according to the "will" of the many, thrown into even sharper relief as coupled with the demand that the have-nots be stripped of their right to vote.

 

[dcraelin]

I suppose. But I think there is a valid role for majority rule. There are circumstances where it's important for society to agree on one course and mandate conformity.

Yes. So long as our unalienable rights are protected, otherwise the only way that social contract can work at all is via majority vote. We being human beings are not often going to agree on every single issue. So whether it is to vote for what color the new carpet in the church sanctuary will be or whether to install a water system for the village or whether to ratify a new amendment for the Constitution, a majority vote is the only democratic way to go.

However, in the context of two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner, we also need to include in the debate how much one group of Americans can impose on another.

I have always thought that the property owners who will be funding the new school or whatever with property taxes should be the only ones to vote for that rather than all the non property owners having a vote in that.

And I have long thought that only tax payers should have a say about how much their taxes will be.

The one thing I haven't figured out is how to accomplish that and still have representative government rather than do everything by referendum.

u know, every one lives somewhere.....and renters generally pay more in taxes per square foot of space than owners....so your concern over voting for funding of schools is misplaced I think.

I also think you r too focused on phrase "general welfare", it maybe, perhaps, did attempt to get at spending in a formulaic way....tho I think it was just a manner of speaking,..a common phrase. What it boils down to is representation....if the Congress mirrors the will of the population closely I'd be fairly satisfied with almost anything they want to spend money on.

The reason I am focused on 'general welfare' is because of the very broad and conflicting opinions re what the phrase means. And I would hope that a new or reformed Constitution would spell out exactly what is meant by the General Welfare when we give the federal government responsibility to promote it or provide it or whatever the will of the people is in that regard. IMO, it is precisely because the term is so ambiguous in interpretation these days that we have so many of the problems we now have.

But you do make a good argument re the renters. Yes, the property taxes the property owner must pay are included in the price of the rents charged, and those renters also often have children who attend the public schools and of course they also utilize city services that everybody else utilizes. But their share of the burden of apartment dwellers is born by many while the single family property owner shoulders the whole load. So yes, all that has to factor in on who should be able to vote for property taxes.

It ultimately comes down to the one point tied up with the 'general welfare' and who pays the bills. Should those who suffer little or no consequences of a vote or who want to increase their own fortunes at the expense of everybody else be able to vote on how much taxes other people pay?

Certainly in the area of public education, the nation as a whole has long considered it a public responsibility. Everyone should have an equal vote.

There is still a gray area in there for me though. For sure I don't want the federal government to have authority over education. It is dangerous enough to accept that the federal government has to control the national defense, components of communication, and the money supply.

And at the local level, there is as you say the concept that everybody should have a say in education. But there is also the principle that other than the most helpless among us, those who benefit from the social contract should contribute to it.

And we still need to work out whether those who do not contribute should be able to vote for how much everybody else will contribute.

No I didnt mean the federal government should have that authority either.
Very dangerous idea your playing with there on voting I think.....And I doubt it would fly among majority of population anyway.

 

[dblack]

Yes. So long as our unalienable rights are protected, otherwise the only way that social contract can work at all is via majority vote. We being human beings are not often going to agree on every single issue. So whether it is to vote for what color the new carpet in the church sanctuary will be or whether to install a water system for the village or whether to ratify a new amendment for the Constitution, a majority vote is the only democratic way to go.

However, in the context of two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner, we also need to include in the debate how much one group of Americans can impose on another.

I have always thought that the property owners who will be funding the new school or whatever with property taxes should be the only ones to vote for that rather than all the non property owners having a vote in that.

And I have long thought that only tax payers should have a say about how much their taxes will be.

The one thing I haven't figured out is how to accomplish that and still have representative government rather than do everything by referendum.

u know, every one lives somewhere.....and renters generally pay more in taxes per square foot of space than owners....so your concern over voting for funding of schools is misplaced I think.

I also think you r too focused on phrase "general welfare", it maybe, perhaps, did attempt to get at spending in a formulaic way....tho I think it was just a manner of speaking,..a common phrase. What it boils down to is representation....if the Congress mirrors the will of the population closely I'd be fairly satisfied with almost anything they want to spend money on.

The reason I am focused on 'general welfare' is because of the very broad and conflicting opinions re what the phrase means. And I would hope that a new or reformed Constitution would spell out exactly what is meant by the General Welfare when we give the federal government responsibility to promote it or provide it or whatever the will of the people is in that regard. IMO, it is precisely because the term is so ambiguous in interpretation these days that we have so many of the problems we now have.

But you do make a good argument re the renters. Yes, the property taxes the property owner must pay are included in the price of the rents charged, and those renters also often have children who attend the public schools and of course they also utilize city services that everybody else utilizes. But their share of the burden of apartment dwellers is born by many while the single family property owner shoulders the whole load. So yes, all that has to factor in on who should be able to vote for property taxes.

It ultimately comes down to the one point tied up with the 'general welfare' and who pays the bills. Should those who suffer little or no consequences of a vote or who want to increase their own fortunes at the expense of everybody else be able to vote on how much taxes other people pay?

Certainly in the area of public education, the nation as a whole has long considered it a public responsibility. Everyone should have an equal vote.

There is still a gray area in there for me though. For sure I don't want the federal government to have authority over education. It is dangerous enough to accept that the federal government has to control the national defense, components of communication, and the money supply.

And at the local level, there is as you say the concept that everybody should have a say in education. But there is also the principle that other than the most helpless among us, those who benefit from the social contract should contribute to it.

And we still need to work out whether those who do not contribute should be able to vote for how much everybody else will contribute.

No I didnt mean the federal government should have that authority either.
Very dangerous idea your playing with there on voting I think.....And I doubt it would fly among majority of population anyway.

I agree. That's not the solution at all. The solution is to set secure limits on what voting can achieve. If we allow people to vote themselves bread and circuses, it's all over - and that essentially what we've done. From the top to the bottom. Or rather, at the top and at the bottom. The middle tends to get fucked.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. So long as our unalienable rights are protected, otherwise the only way that social contract can work at all is via majority vote. We being human beings are not often going to agree on every single issue. So whether it is to vote for what color the new carpet in the church sanctuary will be or whether to install a water system for the village or whether to ratify a new amendment for the Constitution, a majority vote is the only democratic way to go.

However, in the context of two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner, we also need to include in the debate how much one group of Americans can impose on another.

I have always thought that the property owners who will be funding the new school or whatever with property taxes should be the only ones to vote for that rather than all the non property owners having a vote in that.

And I have long thought that only tax payers should have a say about how much their taxes will be.

The one thing I haven't figured out is how to accomplish that and still have representative government rather than do everything by referendum.

u know, every one lives somewhere.....and renters generally pay more in taxes per square foot of space than owners....so your concern over voting for funding of schools is misplaced I think.

I also think you r too focused on phrase "general welfare", it maybe, perhaps, did attempt to get at spending in a formulaic way....tho I think it was just a manner of speaking,..a common phrase. What it boils down to is representation....if the Congress mirrors the will of the population closely I'd be fairly satisfied with almost anything they want to spend money on.

The reason I am focused on 'general welfare' is because of the very broad and conflicting opinions re what the phrase means. And I would hope that a new or reformed Constitution would spell out exactly what is meant by the General Welfare when we give the federal government responsibility to promote it or provide it or whatever the will of the people is in that regard. IMO, it is precisely because the term is so ambiguous in interpretation these days that we have so many of the problems we now have.

But you do make a good argument re the renters. Yes, the property taxes the property owner must pay are included in the price of the rents charged, and those renters also often have children who attend the public schools and of course they also utilize city services that everybody else utilizes. But their share of the burden of apartment dwellers is born by many while the single family property owner shoulders the whole load. So yes, all that has to factor in on who should be able to vote for property taxes.

It ultimately comes down to the one point tied up with the 'general welfare' and who pays the bills. Should those who suffer little or no consequences of a vote or who want to increase their own fortunes at the expense of everybody else be able to vote on how much taxes other people pay?

Certainly in the area of public education, the nation as a whole has long considered it a public responsibility. Everyone should have an equal vote.

There is still a gray area in there for me though. For sure I don't want the federal government to have authority over education. It is dangerous enough to accept that the federal government has to control the national defense, components of communication, and the money supply.

And at the local level, there is as you say the concept that everybody should have a say in education. But there is also the principle that other than the most helpless among us, those who benefit from the social contract should contribute to it.

And we still need to work out whether those who do not contribute should be able to vote for how much everybody else will contribute.

No I didnt mean the federal government should have that authority either.
Very dangerous idea your playing with there on voting I think.....And I doubt it would fly among majority of population anyway.

I'm not 'playing with' anything. I am discussing a concept of whether those who will not suffer the consequences of a policy should be able to force that policy on others? It isn't what I think we should do. It is asking a question or considering a principle so that we can decide whether it should be factored into what we do.

Where the federal government comes in, which is the primary focus of this thread, the simplest solution to me is to put everybody in the exact same boat. If everybody will benefit from or suffer from the same legislation, I'm pretty sure we will all look at that legislation differently than we do when it is targeted at certain groups.

 

[Foxfyre]

u know, every one lives somewhere.....and renters generally pay more in taxes per square foot of space than owners....so your concern over voting for funding of schools is misplaced I think.

I also think you r too focused on phrase "general welfare", it maybe, perhaps, did attempt to get at spending in a formulaic way....tho I think it was just a manner of speaking,..a common phrase. What it boils down to is representation....if the Congress mirrors the will of the population closely I'd be fairly satisfied with almost anything they want to spend money on.

The reason I am focused on 'general welfare' is because of the very broad and conflicting opinions re what the phrase means. And I would hope that a new or reformed Constitution would spell out exactly what is meant by the General Welfare when we give the federal government responsibility to promote it or provide it or whatever the will of the people is in that regard. IMO, it is precisely because the term is so ambiguous in interpretation these days that we have so many of the problems we now have.

But you do make a good argument re the renters. Yes, the property taxes the property owner must pay are included in the price of the rents charged, and those renters also often have children who attend the public schools and of course they also utilize city services that everybody else utilizes. But their share of the burden of apartment dwellers is born by many while the single family property owner shoulders the whole load. So yes, all that has to factor in on who should be able to vote for property taxes.

It ultimately comes down to the one point tied up with the 'general welfare' and who pays the bills. Should those who suffer little or no consequences of a vote or who want to increase their own fortunes at the expense of everybody else be able to vote on how much taxes other people pay?

Certainly in the area of public education, the nation as a whole has long considered it a public responsibility. Everyone should have an equal vote.

There is still a gray area in there for me though. For sure I don't want the federal government to have authority over education. It is dangerous enough to accept that the federal government has to control the national defense, components of communication, and the money supply.

And at the local level, there is as you say the concept that everybody should have a say in education. But there is also the principle that other than the most helpless among us, those who benefit from the social contract should contribute to it.

And we still need to work out whether those who do not contribute should be able to vote for how much everybody else will contribute.

No I didnt mean the federal government should have that authority either.
Very dangerous idea your playing with there on voting I think.....And I doubt it would fly among majority of population anyway.

I agree. That's not the solution at all. The solution is to set secure limits on what voting can achieve. If we allow people to vote themselves bread and circuses, it's all over - and that essentially what we've done. From the top to the bottom. Or rather, at the top and at the bottom. The middle tends to get fucked.

Which is why I raised the question in the first place. Should those who get free bread and circuses be able to vote that for themselves at the expense of others?

And that brings me back to that point on the list. If the federal government is going to provide bread and circuses to anybody, it has to provide that for everybody. Where the federal government is involved, no special interests at the top, at the bottom, or in the middle will be allowed.

I'm not really suggesting we means test the voter at the federal level. I am suggesting a concept in which everybody's vote has the same consequences regardless of who they are.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, so we can table the voting rights issue for the moment. Perhaps that will come into better focus as we consider other aspects of what we hope a reformed and improved Constitution would accomplish.

 

[Foxfyre]

NEW AREA FOR DISCUSSION: FEDERAL REGULATION
​

Let's try some ground rules:

1. No mention of left/right or liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican or any other partisan terms in this section.

2. No post will be started with or include: "So you want. . . " or "So you think. . ." or "So you hope. . . ." or any variation of that. In other words let's leave the ad hominem out of it.

3. If you think a suggestion or concept is good, bad, possible, wrong headed, etc. offer a rationale for why.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't propose that it be the only source, but the Heritage Foundation has posted a paper on federal regulation that is both comprehensive and interesting (at least to me).

I will say right up front that some of you will disagree with their statements of fact and that is okay. But I will use some of them for the purposes of discussion. Let's start with the concept/thesis of the paper:

". . . When the Founders created our Constitution, they entrusted only limited powers to the national government and specifically enumerated those powers in the Constitution itself. A government that only had to carry out a limited number of functions could do so through the institutions and procedures established by the Constitution.

But as the national government expanded and began to focus more and more on every aspect of citizens’ lives, the need for a new kind of government—one focused on regulating the numerous activities of citizens rather than on protecting their individual rights—became apparent. In the United States, this new form of government is the administrative state. In Democracy in America , Alexis de Tocqueville warned that under such a government, citizens would become“nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” [1]

As the modern administrative state has grown and metastasized over the past decades, it has taken many forms, to the point of becoming the primary method of politics and policymaking. The myriad agencies and departments that make up this administrative state operate as a“fourth branch” of government that typically combines the powers of the other three and makes policy with little regard for the rights and views of citizens. In terms of actual policy, most of the action is located in administrative agencies and departments, not in the Congress and the President as is commonly thought. Unelected bureaucrats—not elected representatives—are running the show.

One of the greatest long-term challenges facing the United States is the restoration of limited constitutional government. Central to that objective, and an essential aspect of changing America’s course, is the dismantling of the administrative state that so threatens our self-governing republic. . . ."
From Administrative State to Constitutional Government
​

Comments?