Conservatives and Empathy

[Foxfyre]

To BFGM, the government is a threat to our unalienable rights and the concept of self government when it oversteps its Constitutional authority. The Boston Tea Party was an event that highlighted the anger and frustrations of a people who wanted self governance but were trapped in a monarchal system that dictated to the people what rights they would and would not have. In business, relationships, and revolutions, sonetimes it is a relatively small thing piled on a whole lot of other stuff that finally provokes the people to action.

A government that enforces laws and regulation that protects each person's rights by prohibiting the people from doing economic, social, or physical violence to each other is what the Constitution intends. The Founders also intended that the federal government then leave the people alone to live their lives and form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

That is what freedom is.

 

[bill5]

Debs is rolling in his grave.

Pardon the side bar but the only thing scarier than your name here is that I know what it means. I bet you love powerpoint. :shiver:

 

[Bern80]

Socialism was never tried in the USSR. It was a communist country.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

If you're going to quote Marx, at least keep it in the proper context. Yes, Marx said in the "Communist Manifesto" that "Democracy is the road to socialism." But if you continue his argument, socialism was the next step on the way to communism. And one of Marx's other famous quotations: "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property"

Of course communism was never tried because governments being the way they are, once those in government acquire power, it is extremely rare that they voluntarily give it up. Marx did not think to deal with that in his Manifesto.

And the more power the government has, the less freedom the people will have. Lenin was an avid student and great admirer of Marx's theories. But he too was cvorrupted by power and never got around to moving from totalitarianism to communism. And he was no modern American conservative as the conservatives of America are in no way in favor of a more powerful federal government and certainly not a dictatorship or totalitarian authority.

It is that fact that the Founders of this country, classical liberals aka modern American conservatives all, did understand and they put their lives and fortune on the line to give us a Republic in which the government would secure the rights of the people and then the people would govern themselves. They intended the Federal government to have absolutely no power other than that.

The OP suggested that conservatives have no empathy? Where is the liberal empathy for those who desire more freedom, opportunity, options, choices, ability to innovate? Where is the liberal empathy for the true motives of those who want to put more and more power in the hands of those in the federal government?

Do you folks on the right believe the only threat we need to guard against comes from government? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the largest transnational corporation in the world at that time.

Our founding fathers believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.


A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.


Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents



Education is the cheap defense of nations.
Edmund Burke

Of course government is not the only danger to society. the difference is, and well illustrated by the many regulations you laid out, is that those same regulations meant to keep corproations in line can not be enforced on government if they decide to get out of line, which is why it is even more important that the power of government be severly restricted as opposed to private corporations. At least we have legal recourses if corporations become too powerful. We don't (short of a new revolution) if the government does.

 

[Bfgrn]

If you're going to quote Marx, at least keep it in the proper context. Yes, Marx said in the "Communist Manifesto" that "Democracy is the road to socialism." But if you continue his argument, socialism was the next step on the way to communism. And one of Marx's other famous quotations: "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property"

Of course communism was never tried because governments being the way they are, once those in government acquire power, it is extremely rare that they voluntarily give it up. Marx did not think to deal with that in his Manifesto.

And the more power the government has, the less freedom the people will have. Lenin was an avid student and great admirer of Marx's theories. But he too was cvorrupted by power and never got around to moving from totalitarianism to communism. And he was no modern American conservative as the conservatives of America are in no way in favor of a more powerful federal government and certainly not a dictatorship or totalitarian authority.

It is that fact that the Founders of this country, classical liberals aka modern American conservatives all, did understand and they put their lives and fortune on the line to give us a Republic in which the government would secure the rights of the people and then the people would govern themselves. They intended the Federal government to have absolutely no power other than that.

The OP suggested that conservatives have no empathy? Where is the liberal empathy for those who desire more freedom, opportunity, options, choices, ability to innovate? Where is the liberal empathy for the true motives of those who want to put more and more power in the hands of those in the federal government?

Do you folks on the right believe the only threat we need to guard against comes from government? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the largest transnational corporation in the world at that time.

Our founding fathers believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.


A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.


Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents



Education is the cheap defense of nations.
Edmund Burke

Of course government is not the only danger to society. the difference is, and well illustrated by the many regulations you laid out, is that those same regulations meant to keep corproations in line can not be enforced on government if they decide to get out of line, which is why it is even more important that the power of government be severly restricted as opposed to private corporations. At least we have legal recourses if corporations become too powerful. We don't (short of a new revolution) if the government does.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country."
Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482


Our founding fathers created an entity to address the needs of We, the People. It was not a corporation, it was not a private entity...it was GOVERNMENT. It is the seminal achievement of their lives. It is a representative republic where any one of We, the People can run for office. We have the right to sanction our elected representatives by voting them out of office. And we have the right to elect representatives who share our aspirations, vision and beliefs. We, the People are STAKEholders in our government.

A corporation is only beholden to it's STOCKholders. It does not have the same aspirations, vision or beliefs as We, the People. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage.

Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs, but they should not be running our government. Our founding fathers recognized that and if your read the regulations our founders placed on corporations, our founding fathers FORBID corporations from running their government.

* Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

 

[freedombecki]

Ben Franklin: "When the people find they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic."

 

[Mr.Nick]

Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.

You'll no doubt note that most of the self proclaiming cons on this board display a complete lack of empthy.


Now whether these folks are just trying to sound like tough guys, or they're truly incapable of getting outside of their own shoes, is anyone's guess.

But one does frequently encounter people who are permanently stuck in their own heads who truly cannot remotely imagine another's POV, and almost without exception those types tend to be dogmatic cons.

Its one thing to be empathetic and its another to be completely stupid.

Problem is progressives don't know where to draw the line and it's usually because they're the ones seeking empathy.

I mean would you feed the homeless man before your family?

I bet most progressives would say yes and that makes them stupid, however the truth is most progressives wouldn't give a homeless man their table scraps.

Many studies have been done on human dishonesty.

Progressives are personally some of the most stingy people when it comes to their personal wealth - which is why they look to the government to redistribute wealth. They have a big ******* problem when its them who have to feed the homeless man but have no problem if their neighbor is forced to.

That's the problem with progressives - they talk or scream the talk but don't walk the walk.

The reality is that when a progressive advocates empathetic social programs they think of themselves being the beneficiaries of those programs...

In short progressives are really just sociopaths....

Look at their rioting as proof of that - what type of person who cares about another would actually destroy his property?

How many riots have we had this year from the so called "progressives" that care about humanity and were protesting for "humanity" right before they started throwing bricks through windows?

So how does a person go from "we care about people" to "we're going to destroy your community and cause millions worth of damage" in a matter of seconds??

How about the greedy posers never cared about people or community in the first place - they only cared about themselves and were so filled with envy and hate that they couldn't help but throw a brick through a common mans store window or house window...

Anyone remember G20...

Any empathy for the small business owners just trying to make a dollar and feed their families?? no didn't think so.

Wait until the G8 here in Chicago because I will poach my sell on a rooftop and watch as the Chicago police bust progressive melons..... Of course the progressives will be posting all over the net demanding empathy then....

 

[Bfgrn]

Ben Franklin: "When the people find they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic."

Unattributed quote

 

[Trajan]

Ben Franklin: "When the people find they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic."

Unattributed quote

here; when politicians learn they can bribe the people with their own money, its over...paraphrased but spot on.

 

[Bern80]

Do you folks on the right believe the only threat we need to guard against comes from government? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the largest transnational corporation in the world at that time.

Our founding fathers believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.


A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.


Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents



Education is the cheap defense of nations.
Edmund Burke

Of course government is not the only danger to society. the difference is, and well illustrated by the many regulations you laid out, is that those same regulations meant to keep corproations in line can not be enforced on government if they decide to get out of line, which is why it is even more important that the power of government be severly restricted as opposed to private corporations. At least we have legal recourses if corporations become too powerful. We don't (short of a new revolution) if the government does.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country."
Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482


Our founding fathers created an entity to address the needs of We, the People. It was not a corporation, it was not a private entity...it was GOVERNMENT. It is the seminal achievement of their lives. It is a representative republic where any one of We, the People can run for office. We have the right to sanction our elected representatives by voting them out of office. And we have the right to elect representatives who share our aspirations, vision and beliefs. We, the People are STAKEholders in our government.

A corporation is only beholden to it's STOCKholders. It does not have the same aspirations, vision or beliefs as We, the People. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage.

Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs, but they should not be running our government. Our founding fathers recognized that and if your read the regulations our founders placed on corporations, our founding fathers FORBID corporations from running their government.

* Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

A sentiment I completely agree with, but corporations are bound by laws of the government yet governments are bound by the laws they get to make themselves, thus governments are by far the greater risk to freedom.

Never mind that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. We have two contrasting views. I believe the founders formed our government to be limited and primarily insure people's liberty. You believe as you say above, it was formed to meet people's needs. Well the evidence isn't on your side. The constitution, bill of rights, and federalist papers all speak volumes of the sanctity of freedom and government's role in protecting it. Providing for people's needs, which while altruistic and nice sounding have serious negative ramifications that most of us not so blinded by our compassion via government (as opposed to YOU putting YOUR money where your mouth is) can readily see. Those same documents speak very little of any government obligation to meet people's needs. Why is it you liberals don't get that you can't have a government that protects freedom AND provides people's needs at the same time.

 

[Maple]

Of course government is not the only danger to society. the difference is, and well illustrated by the many regulations you laid out, is that those same regulations meant to keep corproations in line can not be enforced on government if they decide to get out of line, which is why it is even more important that the power of government be severly restricted as opposed to private corporations. At least we have legal recourses if corporations become too powerful. We don't (short of a new revolution) if the government does.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country."
Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482


Our founding fathers created an entity to address the needs of We, the People. It was not a corporation, it was not a private entity...it was GOVERNMENT. It is the seminal achievement of their lives. It is a representative republic where any one of We, the People can run for office. We have the right to sanction our elected representatives by voting them out of office. And we have the right to elect representatives who share our aspirations, vision and beliefs. We, the People are STAKEholders in our government.

A corporation is only beholden to it's STOCKholders. It does not have the same aspirations, vision or beliefs as We, the People. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage.

Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs, but they should not be running our government. Our founding fathers recognized that and if your read the regulations our founders placed on corporations, our founding fathers FORBID corporations from running their government.

* Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

A sentiment I completely agree with, but corporations are bound by laws of the government yet governments are bound by the laws they get to make themselves, thus governments are by far the greater risk to freedom.

Never mind that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. We have two contrasting views. I believe the founders formed our government to be limited and primarily insure people's liberty. You believe as you say above, it was formed to meet people's needs. Well the evidence isn't on your side. The constitution, bill of rights, and federalist papers all speak volumes of the sanctity of freedom and government's role in protecting it, which while altruistic and nice sounding have serious negative ramifications that most of us not so blinded by our compassion via government (as opposed to YOU putting YOUR money where your mouth is) can readily see. Those same documents speak very little of any government obligation to meet people's needs. Why is it you liberals don't get that you can't have a government that protects freedom AND provides people's needs at the same time.

Our founders wrote the declaration of independence and the constitution to protect personal property rights and to restrict government intervention. Personal property, ia also the money you earn. the home and the land you own. It was never intended to grow an invasive government that restricts freedom or confiscates personal property.It was written to ensure freedom to the individual by restricting government. It was not written to protect the government it was written to protect the individual from government.

" Tryanny is when the people fear their government, freedom is when the government fears the people." Thomas Jefferson

 

[Maple]

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country."
Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482


Our founding fathers created an entity to address the needs of We, the People. It was not a corporation, it was not a private entity...it was GOVERNMENT. It is the seminal achievement of their lives. It is a representative republic where any one of We, the People can run for office. We have the right to sanction our elected representatives by voting them out of office. And we have the right to elect representatives who share our aspirations, vision and beliefs. We, the People are STAKEholders in our government.

A corporation is only beholden to it's STOCKholders. It does not have the same aspirations, vision or beliefs as We, the People. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage.

Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs, but they should not be running our government. Our founding fathers recognized that and if your read the regulations our founders placed on corporations, our founding fathers FORBID corporations from running their government.

* Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

A sentiment I completely agree with, but corporations are bound by laws of the government yet governments are bound by the laws they get to make themselves, thus governments are by far the greater risk to freedom.

Never mind that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. We have two contrasting views. I believe the founders formed our government to be limited and primarily insure people's liberty. You believe as you say above, it was formed to meet people's needs. Well the evidence isn't on your side. The constitution, bill of rights, and federalist papers all speak volumes of the sanctity of freedom and government's role in protecting it, which while altruistic and nice sounding have serious negative ramifications that most of us not so blinded by our compassion via government (as opposed to YOU putting YOUR money where your mouth is) can readily see. Those same documents speak very little of any government obligation to meet people's needs. Why is it you liberals don't get that you can't have a government that protects freedom AND provides people's needs at the same time.

Our founders wrote the declaration of independence and the constitution to protect personal property rights and to restrict government intervention. Personal property, ia also the money you earn. the home and the land you own. It was never intended to grow an invasive government that restricts freedom or confiscates personal property.It was written to ensure freedom to the individual by restricting government. It was not written to protect the government it was written to protect the individual from government.

" Tryanny is when the people fear their government, freedom is when the government fears the people." Thomas Jefferson

The bill of rights was something that the people insisted on even though it was covered in the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence. The reason for the Bill of Rights, was that the people had come to America from Tyrannical governments insisted on that too. It was reassurance to them. The federalist papers is a detailed study in the way in which our Founders thought. They were fascinating, intelligent men that wrote from their experiences with other governments. They were self-taught individuals as well.

The Constitution guaranteed equal opportunity it never guaranteed equal outcome.

 

[Maple]

Do you folks on the right believe the only threat we need to guard against comes from government? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the largest transnational corporation in the world at that time.

Our founding fathers believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.


A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.


Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents



Education is the cheap defense of nations.
Edmund Burke

Of course government is not the only danger to society. the difference is, and well illustrated by the many regulations you laid out, is that those same regulations meant to keep corproations in line can not be enforced on government if they decide to get out of line, which is why it is even more important that the power of government be severly restricted as opposed to private corporations. At least we have legal recourses if corporations become too powerful. We don't (short of a new revolution) if the government does.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country."
Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482


Our founding fathers created an entity to address the needs of We, the People. It was not a corporation, it was not a private entity...it was GOVERNMENT. It is the seminal achievement of their lives. It is a representative republic where any one of We, the People can run for office. We have the right to sanction our elected representatives by voting them out of office. And we have the right to elect representatives who share our aspirations, vision and beliefs. We, the People are STAKEholders in our government.

A corporation is only beholden to it's STOCKholders. It does not have the same aspirations, vision or beliefs as We, the People. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage.

Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs, but they should not be running our government. Our founding fathers recognized that and if your read the regulations our founders placed on corporations, our founding fathers FORBID corporations from running their government.

* Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

What do you think about Unions confiscating money from their union members to finance the campaigns of the Democrat party?? Is that okay with you?

 

[Bfgrn]

Ben Franklin: "When the people find they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic."

Unattributed quote

here; when politicians learn they can bribe the people with their own money, its over...paraphrased but spot on.

You are a little confused there Trajan. Maybe it dyslexia, make a doctors appointment ASAP.

When people (i.e. special interests, corporations) can vote themselves money (subsidies, regulatory capture, authoring laws) that will herald the end of the republic.

ALL those malfeasance of power were rampant during the Republican reign especially during the Bush years.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Foxfyre]

Unattributed quote

here; when politicians learn they can bribe the people with their own money, its over...paraphrased but spot on.

You are a little confused there Trajan. Maybe it dyslexia, make a doctors appointment ASAP.

When people (i.e. special interests, corporations) can vote themselves money (subsidies, regulatory capture, authoring laws) that will herald the end of the republic.

ALL those malfeasance of power were rampant during the Republican reign especially during the Bush years.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

The statistics suggest that while there are certainly cases of malfeasance seen in both political parties at the local, country, state, and federal levels, the Democrats, being the party of big government and the nanny state, have the edge. I haven't analyzed the Bush years with a GOP controlled Congress against the Clinton years when he had a Democratically controlled Congress or the Obama years with a Democratically controlled Congress--I'm pretty sure you haven't either--but overall. . . .

According to a 2009 study published in the esteemed American Political Science Review, Democrats are several times more likely than Republicans to find themselves in federal court on public corruption charges.
Assessing Partisan Bias in Federal Public Corruption Prosecutions by Sanford Gordon :: SSRN

This situation will continue in both parties, however, until we take away Congress's ability to use the people's money for any form of charity, benevolence, favor, gift, or payoff.

 

[midcan5]

Interesting seeing this discussion continue, it must have touched a nerve.

Minor complaints, Socialism has never existed anywhere in this world, and the so called 'Nanny State' is a poor nanny for anyone who has seen the people who live on welfare or assistance - this isn't Sweden.

As for Socialism, it, like any considered pure ( place ideology here ) is myth. Elements of socialism exist side by side with capitalism, check China out, there you have bits of communism, socialism and capitalism all together in a strange blend.

While this is a good debate, has anyone considered the OP premise that Megyn Kelly's empathy grew from experience and the implications of that thought? All we need is experience experience, experience is all you need .....

What is says is that stopping us from making terrible mistakes is as important as adding more legislation. No where did I say that we should not try to come up with good legislation. I believe strongly and have for many many years before Obamacare came along that we need to repair our broken healthcare system.

I simply do not believe that Obamacare did that and conservatives who fought against it were doing this country a favor.

Obamacare has made things worse for the poor and unemployed, not better.

Immie

Immie, that would be impossible on a number of levels, one, most of it has not even been implemented and the bill took the form it did because of the republicans and K Street. If having healthcare makes thing worse, you'd need to prove that, you 'believe' because you do not take the time or are in a position to see the good of UHC for all Americans. The same argument can be and is made against Social Security and medicare, two programs that have done more real good than a billion words of opposition.


"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9

 

[Immanuel]

Interesting seeing this discussion continue, it must have touched a nerve.

Minor complaints, Socialism has never existed anywhere in this world, and the so called 'Nanny State' is a poor nanny for anyone who has seen the people who live on welfare or assistance - this isn't Sweden.

As for Socialism, it, like any considered pure ( place ideology here ) is myth. Elements of socialism exist side by side with capitalism, check China out, there you have bits of communism, socialism and capitalism all together in a strange blend.

While this is a good debate, has anyone considered the OP premise that Megyn Kelly's empathy grew from experience and the implications of that thought? All we need is experience experience, experience is all you need .....

What is says is that stopping us from making terrible mistakes is as important as adding more legislation. No where did I say that we should not try to come up with good legislation. I believe strongly and have for many many years before Obamacare came along that we need to repair our broken healthcare system.

I simply do not believe that Obamacare did that and conservatives who fought against it were doing this country a favor.

Obamacare has made things worse for the poor and unemployed, not better.

Immie

Immie, that would be impossible on a number of levels, one, most of it has not even been implemented and the bill took the form it did because of the republicans and K Street. If having healthcare makes thing worse, you'd need to prove that, you 'believe' because you do not take the time or are in a position to see the good of UHC for all Americans. The same argument can be and is made against Social Security and medicare, two programs that have done more real good than a billion words of opposition.


"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9

There are links above that clearly state that ACA has hurt the job market. Some jobs have been added to the health care industry, but many more have been lost in all other sectors. Employers are not hiring because of this damned legislation and they won't be for several more years. Thus it hurts the unemployed.

How does it hurt the poor? I was speaking of those people who will be poor when it is implemented. Those people who are just over the 133% of poverty income level are going to be devastated. They are going to have to start forking over at least another $150/month for insurance. Trust me, $150/month goes a hell of a long way.

Of course, Obama doesn't give a shit because by the time 2014 rolls around he won't be campaigning any longer. He'll be in retirement as we all know he doesn't have a clue as to how to lead this country.

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

Interesting seeing this discussion continue, it must have touched a nerve.

Minor complaints, Socialism has never existed anywhere in this world, and the so called 'Nanny State' is a poor nanny for anyone who has seen the people who live on welfare or assistance - this isn't Sweden.

As for Socialism, it, like any considered pure ( place ideology here ) is myth. Elements of socialism exist side by side with capitalism, check China out, there you have bits of communism, socialism and capitalism all together in a strange blend.

While this is a good debate, has anyone considered the OP premise that Megyn Kelly's empathy grew from experience and the implications of that thought? All we need is experience experience, experience is all you need .....

What is says is that stopping us from making terrible mistakes is as important as adding more legislation. No where did I say that we should not try to come up with good legislation. I believe strongly and have for many many years before Obamacare came along that we need to repair our broken healthcare system.

I simply do not believe that Obamacare did that and conservatives who fought against it were doing this country a favor.

Obamacare has made things worse for the poor and unemployed, not better.

Immie

Immie, that would be impossible on a number of levels, one, most of it has not even been implemented and the bill took the form it did because of the republicans and K Street. If having healthcare makes thing worse, you'd need to prove that, you 'believe' because you do not take the time or are in a position to see the good of UHC for all Americans. The same argument can be and is made against Social Security and medicare, two programs that have done more real good than a billion words of opposition.


"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9

There are links above that clearly state that ACA has hurt the job market. Some jobs have been added to the health care industry, but many more have been lost in all other sectors. Employers are not hiring because of this damned legislation and they won't be for several more years. Thus it hurts the unemployed.

How does it hurt the poor? I was speaking of those people who will be poor when it is implemented. Those people who are just over the 133% of poverty income level are going to be devastated. They are going to have to start forking over at least another $150/month for insurance. Trust me, $150/month goes a hell of a long way.

Of course, Obama doesn't give a shit because by the time 2014 rolls around he won't be campaigning any longer. He'll be in retirement as we all know he doesn't have a clue as to how to lead this country.

Immie

Hey Immie, check out this article. It is written by a guy who was an executive VP at Cigna for 15 years.

Volunteer Doctors Can't Keep Up with Needs of Uninsured and Underinsured

 

[Bern80]

Interesting seeing this discussion continue, it must have touched a nerve.

Minor complaints, Socialism has never existed anywhere in this world, and the so called 'Nanny State' is a poor nanny for anyone who has seen the people who live on welfare or assistance - this isn't Sweden.

As for Socialism, it, like any considered pure ( place ideology here ) is myth. Elements of socialism exist side by side with capitalism, check China out, there you have bits of communism, socialism and capitalism all together in a strange blend.

While this is a good debate, has anyone considered the OP premise that Megyn Kelly's empathy grew from experience and the implications of that thought? All we need is experience experience, experience is all you need .....

What is says is that stopping us from making terrible mistakes is as important as adding more legislation. No where did I say that we should not try to come up with good legislation. I believe strongly and have for many many years before Obamacare came along that we need to repair our broken healthcare system.

I simply do not believe that Obamacare did that and conservatives who fought against it were doing this country a favor.

Obamacare has made things worse for the poor and unemployed, not better.

Immie

Immie, that would be impossible on a number of levels, one, most of it has not even been implemented and the bill took the form it did because of the republicans and K Street. If having healthcare makes thing worse, you'd need to prove that, you 'believe' because you do not take the time or are in a position to see the good of UHC for all Americans. The same argument can be and is made against Social Security and medicare, two programs that have done more real good than a billion words of opposition.


"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9

As ed pointed out earlier, empathy is not sympathy and now I'm wondering if the latter is what the OP meant all along. I don't understand how the OP can conclude conservatives don't have empathy unless he is somehow translating empathy into an action. Because I imagine two people, one with right wing beliefs and another with left wing beliefs could both spend time with and/or as a homeless person or single mother of three for example and empathize with what it's like living that kind of life. They would come away with an understanding of what it is like to be in that situation. The difference is in what I would do about it. Whereas the left would just give the homeless person a house and say problem solved, the first thing I would do is ask the person 'what are you doing to not be homeless anymore?' Do you ever watch any of those drug rehab programs like Celebrity Rehab or Intervention? They all have a central theme to getting off of drugs and it starts with the addict choosing to get off of drugs. And THAT requires something the left seems to have a HUGE problem with. Personal responsibility. Nothing can truly change about your life until YOU decide to do something about it. All the outside help in the world from you oh so compassionate libs isn't going to do shit until a person decided to help themselves first.

 

[Immanuel]

Interesting seeing this discussion continue, it must have touched a nerve.

Minor complaints, Socialism has never existed anywhere in this world, and the so called 'Nanny State' is a poor nanny for anyone who has seen the people who live on welfare or assistance - this isn't Sweden.

As for Socialism, it, like any considered pure ( place ideology here ) is myth. Elements of socialism exist side by side with capitalism, check China out, there you have bits of communism, socialism and capitalism all together in a strange blend.

While this is a good debate, has anyone considered the OP premise that Megyn Kelly's empathy grew from experience and the implications of that thought? All we need is experience experience, experience is all you need .....



Immie, that would be impossible on a number of levels, one, most of it has not even been implemented and the bill took the form it did because of the republicans and K Street. If having healthcare makes thing worse, you'd need to prove that, you 'believe' because you do not take the time or are in a position to see the good of UHC for all Americans. The same argument can be and is made against Social Security and medicare, two programs that have done more real good than a billion words of opposition.


"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9

There are links above that clearly state that ACA has hurt the job market. Some jobs have been added to the health care industry, but many more have been lost in all other sectors. Employers are not hiring because of this damned legislation and they won't be for several more years. Thus it hurts the unemployed.

How does it hurt the poor? I was speaking of those people who will be poor when it is implemented. Those people who are just over the 133% of poverty income level are going to be devastated. They are going to have to start forking over at least another $150/month for insurance. Trust me, $150/month goes a hell of a long way.

Of course, Obama doesn't give a shit because by the time 2014 rolls around he won't be campaigning any longer. He'll be in retirement as we all know he doesn't have a clue as to how to lead this country.

Immie

Hey Immie, check out this article. It is written by a guy who was an executive VP at Cigna for 15 years.

Volunteer Doctors Can't Keep Up with Needs of Uninsured and Underinsured

I don't have a lot of time and only scanned your article. I don't see anything that contradicts what I said.

As I am currently unemployed, with very little hope of finding a job in the next two and a half years or beyond thank to ACA, I can tell you that if it were now 2014, I would be in a world of hurt having to come up with an additional $150/month.

That is where I am coming from. The ACA is severely limiting my chances of becoming employed again and if I had to throw away $150/month today for insurance, I simply could not keep pace.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

The healthcare system has needed to be reformed for many decades. This healthcare bill does not go far enough, but it's a good first step. Private and individual acts of kindness are all well and good, but they don't address the needs of the populace well.