Left Leadership is Progressive Socialist. That's Government control.
Not necessarily. One of those two sentences is false, depending on which definition of "socialism" you want to use. If you're defining it in the classic sense of government ownership of the means of production, then the left is not (for the most part) socialist. If you're defining it more loosely so that, for example, European social democratic parties can be called "socialist," i.e. favoring policies that work toward economic equality without abolishing private enterprise, then socialism is not government control.
You are being played, that is the point. Government is not the answer. The Parasite has outgrown the Host, it's hunger is unsustainable.
To be honest, I consider the above a little paranoid. Government is not a parasite. I am not being "played" -- who would be doing the playing? And while I don't believe more government is the answer, i.e. I think we have about the right amount, what I would like to see is for the government do less of some things (foreign military intervention, corporate subsidies) and more of others (protection of workers' rights, education, infrastructure). So in that sense, government (although not bigger government) is indeed the answer.
I want to remove the right of ALL collective entities and organizations to donate to political campaigns, directly or indirectly. I'm mainly concerned about for-profit corporations (and the non-profit corps through which they funnel money), but any such rules would have to apply across the board, definitely including unions. And in fact, if you removed the corporate cash but left the union cash in, then union contributions would I think become a serious concern, where right now they're not. So yes, we have to restrict what they do, too. Let them represent the interests of the workers through collective bargaining. That's what they're supposed to do. Political lobbying isn't.
I'm kind of surprised that someone as concerned about big government as you are would propose a paternalistic solution (stronger labor laws) instead of the empowering solution that unions represent.
The problem with leaving it to Congress to decide these things (states have no jurisdiction over federal elections except in some very limited ways) is that Congress is corrupt. It's a vicious circle. Also, the Supreme Court in
Citizens United tied Congress' hands. We're going to have to amend the Constitution to get around that, and since Congress won't pass the amendment we have to do it the other way, through a constitutional convention.
Regarding your next paragraph, all I can say is that I agree it would be better if the judges were uniformly wise, honorable, and just. But we have to form government from human beings as they are.
I think this is a misconception about the Constitution. Let me see if I can explain this.
The Constitution doesn't limit the role of government. It does limit the role of the
federal government, but all powers not enumerated in Article II, Section 8 go to the states, which are still government, except as explicitly forbidden e.g. in Section 10.
As for the limitations on the federal government, they're a lot less tight than some imagine. There are two very broad enumerated powers, the power to tax (and spend), and the power to regulate commerce. There is also essentially unlimited power to fund military forces. These powers existed from the beginning, even though they were not used from the beginning to the extent they are today.
Remember that the purpose of the constitutional convention was not to weaken government but to strengthen it. The Articles of Confederation government was perceived as too weak to do what was necessary. That being so, does it not make sense that the framers would create an instrument with enough flexibility that it would not be rendered impotent by the first crisis that came along?
Separation of powers and checks and balances aren't there to limit the role of government. They exist to prevent any one part of the government from taking all power to itself, creating potentially a dictatorship (if it's the presidency) or an oligarchy (if it's Congress). The total power wielded by the government in the aggregate is unaffected by these measures.
The War of 1812 was fought, in part, over Sovereignty and Freedom of the Seas. Madison doesn't have to apologize for that
My point was not that we were wrong to go to war, but that we got hosed. Going to war and losing is kind of always wrong, in my opinion. The Brits kicked our butts. Then they signed a peace treaty giving us most of what we wanted anyway because they were too busy with Napoleon to bother.
What Madison learned from this was the necessity in a modern society of certain institutions he was opposed to on principle. These included a standing army of at least minimal size and competence, and a central bank to help finance it. So he dropped his opposition to the Bank of the United States and signed its re-authorization when Congress passed it. I agree this could have been done differently (we do it differently today), but some sort of central banking institution was necessary.
You make good points. There are usually multiple ways to achieve, yet each has it's drawbacks and advantages. We are not always limited to what we perceive. Things are not always what they seem either.
Very true. Especially in a time like this, it's necessary to think outside the box.
