Constitution

[Newby]

You want no Government but before it goes you want it to make all those better off then you to be made no better then you financially. How Quaint. You want no Government but you want this none existent Government to seize all Industry and basically destroy it by giving it away to people that have no investment in it. How Quaint.

n other words you want anarchy so no one will have more than you and you do not have to work to achieve anything. Thanks for explaining that.

Don't be absurd. Your primitive misconceptions simply can't address the fact that the democratic market socialism of the nature that I advocate (based around worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives, again), would have a far smaller place for government than capitalism currently does. Workers' ownership is precisely what facilitates legitimately competitive market exchange by those with an interest in success; the fact that all workers receive shares of firm profits is a strong motivation to work harder.

Do these workers have to put capital into it when the business is created? Take the risk? Or do they just to come in after the fact and get to own a piece of something that they had no part in creating?

 

[Newby]

I think an inability to implement legitimate democracy is a deficiency of republicanism as a whole, which is why I instead advocate anarchism, keeping in mind Gaston Leval's observation that the Spanish anarchists "instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life." That said, I've long recognized the unfeasibility of the implementation of anarchism in my lifetime, so I instead focus on broad progressivism and libertarianism.

Now, I also do believe that the founders had an interest in equality of opportunity, and did not realize that rapid industrialization would cement the power of the financial class and prevent easy transition by the masses. Their existence in an agrarian society characterized by relative equality of opportunity for white male landowners over 21 (heh), prevented any major speculation about this. That's why I favor nationalization of major industries and the extension of democracy into the economic realm through worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives, combined with the destruction of wealth and market concentration and the facilitation of legitimately competitive market enterprise through the radical re-organization of property rights so that genuine equality of opportunity is established. It's through that means that the role of government, an integral agent in the capitalist economy, can be drastically reduced in the market socialist economy and democracy can flourish.

If your concept EVER gets enacted, I'm voting with my feet. That place is no place I'd like to live.

I'm with you on that one.

 

[Pyrite]

So lets go through this paragraph and try to discern what it means:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So what power, exactly, does congress have? the power to collect money (through taxes, duties, and so on). What does it have this power for? Three uses are described, to pay debts, to provide for the common defense of the United States, and to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

So the "general welfare" of the united states is something the Congress can spend money on, which can be collected through taxes.

Please explain why, say, the department of education cannot be created under this power? Is the intent of the department of education not to provide for the "general welfare of the United States?" what would be authorized, in your mind, under the definition of "general welfare".

 

[Citizen]

So lets go through this paragraph and try to discern what it means:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So what power, exactly, does congress have? the power to collect money (through taxes, duties, and so on). What does it have this power for? Three uses are described, to pay debts, to provide for the common defense of the United States, and to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

So the "general welfare" of the united states is something the Congress can spend money on, which can be collected through taxes.

Please explain why, say, the department of education cannot be created under this power? Is the intent of the department of education not to provide for the "general welfare of the United States?" what would be authorized, in your mind, under the definition of "general welfare".

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So lets go through this paragraph and try to discern what it means:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So what power, exactly, does congress have? the power to collect money (through taxes, duties, and so on). What does it have this power for? Three uses are described, to pay debts, to provide for the common defense of the United States, and to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

So the "general welfare" of the united states is something the Congress can spend money on, which can be collected through taxes.

Please explain why, say, the department of education cannot be created under this power? Is the intent of the department of education not to provide for the "general welfare of the United States?" what would be authorized, in your mind, under the definition of "general welfare".

The argument could be made that anything is for the general welfare of the United States, which means that the government could do anything. The founders did not intend for this to be the case whatsoever.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, The Federalist #45

The Federalist #45

 

[Tech_Esq]

So lets go through this paragraph and try to discern what it means:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So what power, exactly, does congress have? the power to collect money (through taxes, duties, and so on). What does it have this power for? Three uses are described, to pay debts, to provide for the common defense of the United States, and to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

So the "general welfare" of the united states is something the Congress can spend money on, which can be collected through taxes.

Please explain why, say, the department of education cannot be created under this power? Is the intent of the department of education not to provide for the "general welfare of the United States?" what would be authorized, in your mind, under the definition of "general welfare".

To amplify on the post above, from Federalist 41.

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

This I believe is your position Pyrite.

To which Madison says:

No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Madison Continues:

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

And then Madison suggests the people reading it this way need to go back to school so they can understand the written word.

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?

He goes on, if you wish to continue the debate on the matter with Madison.

Federalist 41

 

[Old Rocks]

lawyers, overall, are liberal. lawschools, overall, are liberal. the number of conservative lawyers is miniscule compared to the liberal lawyers. so....that jillian is a liberal and a lawyer is not surprising based solely on her extreme liberalism.

I see. What you are saying is that those with high intellects tend to be liberal. Well........

 

[DamnYankee]

My son has history project due next week. It's a timeline and write up covering six of the chapters in their history book. It basically covers pre-Revolutionary war to post Constitution.

In reading over the information, when I started reading the 'Seven Principles of the Constitution' when I read these principles, I did a double take. 1. 'Popular Sovereignty (who gives the government its power). Popular sovereignty is a government in which the people rule. Everyone I've spoken too thinks bailing out failing companies is wrong, wrong, wrong yet . . . the government does as it pleases, not what the people want. 2. Republicanism - the people exercise their power by voting of their political reps. Ok -- but how do you get reps who will represent the people instead of their own interests? I don't trust any of the politicians to hold my best interest in the forefront, do you? Obama vs. McCain. I mean, really? This was our choice? 3. Limited Government - ok, this was the one that really made me stop. The Constitution was specifically framed for the government to be limited and yet . . . . the government is anything but limited, and hasn't been for awhile, and is growing bigger and bigger as we speak. The principle of limited government is also closely related to the 'rule of law', where in the American government everyone, citizens and powerful leaders alike, must obey the law. Individuals or groups cannot twist or bypass the law to serve their own interests. How many of Obama's cabinet picks have broken the law and yet . . . . a blind eye is turned to it and they are given the job.

In reading over all of the information in the history book it made me sick to see where our government started and how far off course we've gone. I see government control in so many things where it just shouldn't be . . . when will it stop? Honestly, I don't think it will. It makes me sad to think that in another generation or so they won't have any idea that once upon a time people had the freedom to make choices instead of the government deciding for them.

Has your son learned all that yet?

The part about the pre-Revolutionary war to post Constitution? Yes. The part of what is going on today? No. My son is ASD (autistic spectrum disorder). He is in adaptive History and English classes, as his learning is limited.

You have your hands full. Best wishes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My son has history project due next week. It's a timeline and write up covering six of the chapters in their history book. It basically covers pre-Revolutionary war to post Constitution.

In reading over the information, when I started reading the 'Seven Principles of the Constitution' when I read these principles, I did a double take. 1. 'Popular Sovereignty (who gives the government its power). Popular sovereignty is a government in which the people rule. Everyone I've spoken too thinks bailing out failing companies is wrong, wrong, wrong yet . . . the government does as it pleases, not what the people want. 2. Republicanism - the people exercise their power by voting of their political reps. Ok -- but how do you get reps who will represent the people instead of their own interests? I don't trust any of the politicians to hold my best interest in the forefront, do you? Obama vs. McCain. I mean, really? This was our choice? 3. Limited Government - ok, this was the one that really made me stop. The Constitution was specifically framed for the government to be limited and yet . . . . the government is anything but limited, and hasn't been for awhile, and is growing bigger and bigger as we speak. The principle of limited government is also closely related to the 'rule of law', where in the American government everyone, citizens and powerful leaders alike, must obey the law. Individuals or groups cannot twist or bypass the law to serve their own interests. How many of Obama's cabinet picks have broken the law and yet . . . . a blind eye is turned to it and they are given the job.

In reading over all of the information in the history book it made me sick to see where our government started and how far off course we've gone. I see government control in so many things where it just shouldn't be . . . when will it stop? Honestly, I don't think it will. It makes me sad to think that in another generation or so they won't have any idea that once upon a time people had the freedom to make choices instead of the government deciding for them.

Don't bring this up amongst our Left leaning friends. They will tell you that even though it is clearly stated that the Federal Government was to be a limited Government and that AMENDMENTS were required to give it new powers, that the supposed General Welfare clause ( one that does NOT exist) gives the Government UNLIMITED power.

That new Amendments are not needed when one can just claim it is for the "general" Welfare. Again a clause that does not exist.

Lawyers, politicians hell every walk of life for the left will tell you this.

Just before the Constitution lists the REAL Limits of power given the Federal Government, the wrote a paragraph to explain WHY these powers were granted and they added a point that THESE powers were for the General Welfare of the Country and the people.

Now the left takes that OUT of context and claims, even though it is not one of the listed powers, that some how it is now a power of the Government.

The Federalist papers, other papers, comments from the Founders all indicate this simply is NOT true. The Constitution itself proves it is not true as it does not list " the General Welfare" as a separate power at all. It is simply a descriptor of WHY the real powers exist.

Jillian is one of the worst offenders, she keeps reminding us she went to LAW school and is a practicing Attorney and she is so badly informed on what the Constitution means as to beg the question? Was she ever given a class on the document?

People were once thought that the world was square too, it took a long time to prove otherwise. The only differecne is that those people really believed the world was square, in the case of the libtards promoting the idea that the constitution was given the power to determine and control the general welfare of the people, it's a self serving interest and a case they have yet been able to prove.

When was this, and what's your proof?

 

[Agnapostate]

If your concept EVER gets enacted, I'm voting with my feet. That place is no place I'd like to live.

I'm sorry you're not a fan of efficiency and democracy.

she most certainly lives in new york, one neighborhood over from where i lived when there, and she knows enough minutia on the area, that i can say for certain she is from new york.

and she is a lawyer too... so differ with ya there as well...

It doesn't matter to me. She merely claimed that I'd lied about my identity, so I felt obliged to reciprocate.

Do these workers have to put capital into it when the business is created? Take the risk? Or do they just to come in after the fact and get to own a piece of something that they had no part in creating?

Workers often lack the means to do so, although the establishment of ESOPs is at least a step in the right direction. It's of course also clearly fallacious to allege that they had "no part in creating" the firm; their labor is the chief element of firm construction, one that would endure even when external ownership and artificial human management techniques are long gone.

 

[Newby]

If your concept EVER gets enacted, I'm voting with my feet. That place is no place I'd like to live.

I'm sorry you're not a fan of efficiency and democracy.

she most certainly lives in new york, one neighborhood over from where i lived when there, and she knows enough minutia on the area, that i can say for certain she is from new york.

and she is a lawyer too... so differ with ya there as well...

It doesn't matter to me. She merely claimed that I'd lied about my identity, so I felt obliged to reciprocate.

Do these workers have to put capital into it when the business is created? Take the risk? Or do they just to come in after the fact and get to own a piece of something that they had no part in creating?

Workers often lack the means to do so, although the establishment of ESOPs is at least a step in the right direction. It's of course also clearly fallacious to allege that they had "no part in creating" the firm; their labor is the chief element of firm construction, one that would endure even when external ownership and artificial human management techniques are long gone.

They get paid for their labor, that doesn't entitle them to profit.

 

[Agnapostate]

They get paid for their labor, that doesn't entitle them to profit.

You forget that the economic framework of capitalism involves a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. In visually pleasing terms:

Ultimately, laborers are typically in a subordinate position that exposes them to coercion and exploitation. As noted by Adam Smith, "in the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate" and similarly put by Alfred Marshall "labor is often sold under special disadvantages arising from the closely connected groups of facts that labor power is 'perishable', that the sellers of it are commonly poor and have no reserve fund, and that they cannot easily withhold it from the market."

 

[Tech_Esq]

If your concept EVER gets enacted, I'm voting with my feet. That place is no place I'd like to live.

I'm sorry you're not a fan of efficiency and democracy.

she most certainly lives in new york, one neighborhood over from where i lived when there, and she knows enough minutia on the area, that i can say for certain she is from new york.

and she is a lawyer too... so differ with ya there as well...

It doesn't matter to me. She merely claimed that I'd lied about my identity, so I felt obliged to reciprocate.

Do these workers have to put capital into it when the business is created? Take the risk? Or do they just to come in after the fact and get to own a piece of something that they had no part in creating?

Workers often lack the means to do so, although the establishment of ESOPs is at least a step in the right direction. It's of course also clearly fallacious to allege that they had "no part in creating" the firm; their labor is the chief element of firm construction, one that would endure even when external ownership and artificial human management techniques are long gone.

I'll take democracy over efficiency any day. I'm familiar what efficiency is a euphemism for.

 

[Newby]

They get paid for their labor, that doesn't entitle them to profit.

You forget that the economic framework of capitalism involves a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. In visually pleasing terms:

Ultimately, laborers are typically in a subordinate position that exposes them to coercion and exploitation. As noted by Adam Smith, "in the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate" and similarly put by Alfred Marshall "labor is often sold under special disadvantages arising from the closely connected groups of facts that labor power is 'perishable', that the sellers of it are commonly poor and have no reserve fund, and that they cannot easily withhold it from the market."

Really? How do you explain MicroSoft then? Your so called 'suboridinate position' didn't seem to mean a damn thing there.

 

[Agnapostate]

Really? How do you explain MicroSoft then? Your so called 'suboridinate position' didn't seem to mean a damn thing there.

As an isolated case with no bearing on general realities. Only large data sets are suitable for thorough empirical analysis; the American population is by no means homogenous, and the spectrum of human behaviors and activities is so widely varying that citation of "anecdotal" evidence provides no empirical value whatsoever.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Really? How do you explain MicroSoft then? Your so called 'suboridinate position' didn't seem to mean a damn thing there.

As an isolated case with no bearing on general realities. Only large data sets are suitable for thorough empirical analysis; the American population is by no means homogenous, and the spectrum of human behaviors and activities is so widely varying that citation of "anecdotal" evidence provides no empirical value whatsoever.

Bwhahahahaha!!!

Come'on are you really that desperate Agna? You had to trot that BS out? You need to turn it right around and put it back in the barn.

The problem with your entire theory is that it works will when you are talking about traditional large businesses like Generous Motors and US Steel or Mega-Textile. But nobody works for those companies anymore.

Most people work for small businesses. (Under 500 people). Small businesses are very sensitive to labor market influences in terms of the price for wages and benefits. If times are good and unemployment is low, wages in those businesses are usually spiking. Benefits are increased to keep valuable labor assets from moving to other companies.

This is a far superior method that the centralized command economy. As the old saw in the USSR went, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

 

[Newby]

Really? How do you explain MicroSoft then? Your so called 'suboridinate position' didn't seem to mean a damn thing there.

As an isolated case with no bearing on general realities. Only large data sets are suitable for thorough empirical analysis; the American population is by no means homogenous, and the spectrum of human behaviors and activities is so widely varying that citation of "anecdotal" evidence provides no empirical value whatsoever.

Bwhahahahaha!!!

Come'on are you really that desperate Agna? You had to trot that BS out? You need to turn it right around and put it back in the barn.

The problem with your entire theory is that it works will when you are talking about traditional large businesses like Generous Motors and US Steel or Mega-Textile. But nobody works for those companies anymore.

Most people work for small businesses. (Under 500 people). Small businesses are very sensitive to labor market influences in terms of the price for wages and benefits. If times are good and unemployment is low, wages in those businesses are usually spiking. Benefits are increased to keep valuable labor assets from moving to other companies.

This is a far superior method that the centralized command economy. As the old saw in the USSR went, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

I thought the same thing whenever I saw his response. Is he for real? An 'isolated' case, my ass. As you stated, the thousands of small successful businesses completely ruin his theory, not to mention the monsters like Microsoft that started from humble beginnings. Common sense is lost on this dude.

 

[Tech_Esq]

As an isolated case with no bearing on general realities. Only large data sets are suitable for thorough empirical analysis; the American population is by no means homogenous, and the spectrum of human behaviors and activities is so widely varying that citation of "anecdotal" evidence provides no empirical value whatsoever.

Bwhahahahaha!!!

Come'on are you really that desperate Agna? You had to trot that BS out? You need to turn it right around and put it back in the barn.

The problem with your entire theory is that it works will when you are talking about traditional large businesses like Generous Motors and US Steel or Mega-Textile. But nobody works for those companies anymore.

Most people work for small businesses. (Under 500 people). Small businesses are very sensitive to labor market influences in terms of the price for wages and benefits. If times are good and unemployment is low, wages in those businesses are usually spiking. Benefits are increased to keep valuable labor assets from moving to other companies.

This is a far superior method that the centralized command economy. As the old saw in the USSR went, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

I thought the same thing whenever I saw his response. Is he for real? An 'isolated' case, my ass. As you stated, the thousands of small successful businesses completely ruin his theory, not to mention the monsters like Microsoft that started from humble beginnings. Common sense is lost on this dude.

Agna's not interested in common sense. He's interested in deconstruction of the American society. Once it is deconstructed, it can be rebuilt on themes that he's talked about.

You can't assume that he agrees with anything the way it is currently done or why we do it that way. He's a complete falling off the charts radical.

 

[Newby]

Bwhahahahaha!!!

Come'on are you really that desperate Agna? You had to trot that BS out? You need to turn it right around and put it back in the barn.

The problem with your entire theory is that it works will when you are talking about traditional large businesses like Generous Motors and US Steel or Mega-Textile. But nobody works for those companies anymore.

Most people work for small businesses. (Under 500 people). Small businesses are very sensitive to labor market influences in terms of the price for wages and benefits. If times are good and unemployment is low, wages in those businesses are usually spiking. Benefits are increased to keep valuable labor assets from moving to other companies.

This is a far superior method that the centralized command economy. As the old saw in the USSR went, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

I thought the same thing whenever I saw his response. Is he for real? An 'isolated' case, my ass. As you stated, the thousands of small successful businesses completely ruin his theory, not to mention the monsters like Microsoft that started from humble beginnings. Common sense is lost on this dude.

Agna's not interested in common sense. He's interested in deconstruction of the American society. Once it is deconstructed, it can be rebuilt on themes that he's talked about.

You can't assume that he agrees with anything the way it is currently done or why we do it that way. He's a complete falling off the charts radical.

That appears to be true, but it really makes me wonder how people come to hold these idealologies to begin with tho. I'll just never understand how someone even thinks in those terms.

 

[Agnapostate]

Bwhahahahaha!!!

Come'on are you really that desperate Agna? You had to trot that BS out? You need to turn it right around and put it back in the barn.

The problem with your entire theory is that it works will when you are talking about traditional large businesses like Generous Motors and US Steel or Mega-Textile. But nobody works for those companies anymore.

Most people work for small businesses. (Under 500 people). Small businesses are very sensitive to labor market influences in terms of the price for wages and benefits. If times are good and unemployment is low, wages in those businesses are usually spiking. Benefits are increased to keep valuable labor assets from moving to other companies.

I don't believe you understand the nature of my analysis. I haven't adopted the schtick of the evil faceless conglomerate oppressing mankind, nor have I merely complained about a lack of wages and benefits as a result of individual company malpractice. I've referred to problems of underpayment, unemployment, and underemployment being structural deficiencies in the capitalist economy and the extraction of wage labor being a component in the financial class's capital accumulation being theft.

I also examine the negative impact that information asymmetries play in the capitalist economy. For instance, to further elaborate on the perspective that examines underpayment, I'd refer to the work of Hofler and Murphy in Underpaid and Overworked: Measuring the Effect of Imperfect Information on Wages.

This paper investigates the degree of shortfall between the wages workers earn and what they could earn assuming perfect or costless information in the labor market. We use the stochastic frontier regression technique to estimate the degree of shortfall found in wages on an individual basis. The paper tests, in addition, a number of hypotheses supplied by search theory in this context. The results generally confirm the propositions from search theory and indicate that, on the average, worker wages fall short of worker potential wages by approximately 10 percent.

And yes...when I'm pressed, I will elaborate on capitalism's anti-libertarian elements, although I prefer to maintain focus on its adverse impacts on efficiency.

This is a far superior method that the centralized command economy. As the old saw in the USSR went, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

I haven't expressed support for a centralized command economy, and I think mention of it typically indicates ignorance of socialist political economy. That said, the capitalist economy is not more efficient than the state capitalist command economy on every front. For instance, consider employment. For all its faults, the Soviet Union was able to maintain relatively full employment at least on paper (though in practice, they were often plagued by underemployment), a feat that the capitalist economy does not achieve. But more critical is the fact that full employment cannot exist in a capitalist economy. A sufficiently high rate of equilibrium unemployment is a necessary disciplinary stick under capitalism, and is utilized as a device to prevent workers from shirking. Since involuntary unemployment is a wasted resource and a form of static inefficiency, we thus encounter a paradox: External inefficiency is effectively a necessary condition of internal efficiency in the capitalist economy.