Question About Operation of Small Government

The "democratic element" does allow the people to exercise a choice of WHO is allowed to make the laws, but NOT much say on what laws that make. You have to elect them first to see what they will do.

 

Individual

You said - When the power government has is limited by a proper interpretation of the Constitution, the people who make up the majority have more ability to control it than do a minority who possess great wealth.

I asked for clarification and you reply - Simple, wealth tends to flow toward power in order to gain influence.

Yes but that doesn’t seem to answer the question it doesn’t seem to explain in any way your statement.

If anything the US constitution was originally biased toward wealth.
Try reading - Economic Interests and the Adoption of the United States Constitution

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/mcguire.constitution.us.economic.interests
and
A Constitution for the Few: Looking Back to the Beginning

http://www.iefd.org/articles/constitution_for_the_few.php

*

Also it seems to me that there can be many interpretations of the US Constitution, and that it could come down to the bias and prejudice of the individual as to what interpretation was deemed ‘proper’.

So the statement seems meaningless without an explanation of what you see at the ‘proper’ interpretation.

And you have argued against democracy and would like a system where the few would have more votes to counter those of the many which would make the few at best equal to but more likely more powerful than the majority.

*

 

Again you confuse size with outcome – good government would do both in the best possible way, there needs to be control of some peoples actions, you have even said so yourself (laws against the hurting of others for instance), but with a democratic element that allows people to exercise who is allowed to make those laws.

Once again I have to remind you that you have argued against democracy and would like a system where the few would have more votes to counter those of the many. Wealth would still retain the power and influence wealth gives it but would also have greater voting power as well. In other word in my view it wouldn’t be a democratic system.

And anyway how does this fit into the idea of ‘small’ government the problem you mention would seem to be there whatever the size. If anything a ‘smaller’ weaker government with fewer people in positions of power would if anything seem easier to influence.

Also that problem just highlights something I’ve been saying for years here – the importance of debate in politics.

People need to go beyond the slogans and start asking questions, to start examining ideas (others and their own) to see if they stand up to scrutiny.

So that they have a lot better idea of what types of policies a political party might pursue and what laws it would enact or repeal.

 

I don't care to try and interpret the entire Constitution, and feel that is the primary schools have failed us by not teaching it as it was originally written generation after generation, allowing for any chages in interpretation to come about only as a result of the amendment process written in a way that all would understand and interpret exactly the same.

Governments power was supposed to come from the bottom, not from the top in most every area of life. The Federal government was supposed to assure that protection was provided the States as a whole, and assure that States would deal fairly with each other. I guess it's difficult to understand if you have been taught along the lines of Marxism or Democratic Socialism.

 

Individual

You don’t care to answer the question; sounds to me that’s just another way of saying you can’t answer the question.

As I’ve said - If anything the US constitution was originally biased toward wealth.


Try reading - Economic Interests and the Adoption of the United States Constitution

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/m...omic.interests
and
A Constitution for the Few: Looking Back to the Beginning

http://www.iefd.org/articles/constit...or_the_few.php


*

Lets get this straight you think there is or could be one interpretation of the constitution but you don’t know what that is?

*

But originally there was a very limited voting group with property qualification excluding most people (90%) in most places, so your statement doesn’t make sense.

Also you have argued against democracy and would like a system where the few would have more votes to counter those of the many.

You are seeing life through the prism of your bias and prejudice rather than looking at things more rationally. If you actually looked at what I’m saying rather than thinking you know what I’m saying you would realise that my view are very far from being Marxist.

If anything the reason why people might find your views difficult to understand is because far to often you ‘don’t care’ to explain them and especially after the flaws in them are revealed. When that happens your default seem to be to accuse your critics of been communists, Marxists, or socialists, but that doesn’t make the flaws go away.

 

I think it is clear by now that the whole ‘small government’ argument is a smokescreen, for a right wing agenda

It’s not about better government but cutting their taxes, it’s not about efficient government but about cutting the benefits going to the disadvantaged and it’s not about ‘freeing’ people but about trying to perpetuate their own wealth and influence.

Either the people that promote these ideas are incredibly unquestioning and gullible or they’re being dishonest.

 

I don't deny that cutting taxes, and spending is a primary desire. What are you trying to free people from? Responsibility, maturity, choices that end in failure?

 

in a capitalist system, it seems that some must fail so that others succeed - so they that succeed owe nothing to those who by failing made way for them?

without government intervention, history shows that the successful will not adequately compensate those actively enabling that success through labor

fortunately for the successful, those days have somewhat returned - though we have a large government, as regards greed it is an enabling rather than restricting government

and that is its major fault . . .

 

If you are claiming the capitalist system to be the problem, what system do you propose as the solution?
Success usually comes as a result of producing a product or service for which a demand exists or can be created, while keeping the costs below the sales price. Failure occurs when the cost of producing a product or service can not be kept below a price which the product or service can be sold. While you may feel that those who succeed owe their success to the consumer who purchase their product or service, their only obligation has been fulfilled by providing a product or service at an acceptable exchange value to those who purchased it. Competition is natural, and provides rewards to those who are most motivated and ultimately prevail.

At the same time, government, and union intervention can force overcompensation which eventually leads to failures requiring taxpayer subsidization or bailouts.

I see government to be the source of many problems, and each time government intervenes with a solution the problems increase. People should be allowed to earn proportionate to the value they and their employers agree. While I've worked for a large corporation all my life, I would have gone elsewhere had I been limited to union pay scale when I was not management, and when management also.

 

all i want is for capitalism, which people in their current state of evolution seem to think they like, to be moderated

not by those who profit most by it [the capitalists], but by the people who keep the system running through their toil, or through more fairly elected representatives

oh, surely you don't think overcompensation at any layer other than the top had anything to do with the recent spate failures, do you?

to some degree we agree that government is not working

i just think that better government will work better, and that no government will merely be handing over the keys to the thieves

 

I'm curious as to how and what you would do moderate capitalism. Capitalism is just an economic system and along with a common currency it allows us to assign a relative value to the wide selection of goods and services that are available today.

If you mean the financial failures, I don't think it had as much to do with compensation as it did with the rules and regulations that were created by government.

No one has proposed no government, just a less hands on government, and one that concentrates more on the thieves than the taxpaying public in general. I often feel that there are more thieves in government than there are in the general public.

 

capitalism has been moderated off and on throughout the history of this country, most notably by the various roosevelts

but you knew that, right?

um, but you said:

so, "overcompensation" doesn't mean compensation, it means rules and regulations, oh, hell, i'm lost . . .

in your estimation are our corporate masters part of the general public?

it's not a matter of big versus small government

my town has very low tax rates and a very small government, and it is as corrupt as can be

it's a matter of good versus bad government, and i think the element of profit is what turns government bad

so a government that was truly non-profit, one that perhaps got things done through combinations of civil service labor and volunteerism

one whose members were elected through public funding, and that did not merely serve to channel public funds to corporate supporters

one that provided basic services without profit: water, power, heat, education, transportation, etc.

and when needed, housing, food, emergency and medical services, etc.

when profit is eliminated from governance, surely taxes will be decreased, no?

and when profit is eliminated from the very essentials of life, surely the general public's burden will be eased as well?

edit to add: government needs to protect its citizenry from crime as well [but my definition of crime is broader when applied to finance than yours, perhaps?] instead of aiding crime - the war profiteering of say, halliburton, and its stockholders

 

okay, i'd like to see much more than all that, but i don't think the u$ massive is quite ready for global cooperation . . .

 

I was asking how "you" would moderate capitalism. In a free market system, does not the consumer and competition have the effect of moderating?

When you shop do you not use quality and cost in determining what you purchase? Should not a business look for the best quality employees at the lowest cost? Employers are like shoppers who are purchasing the time and skills of the individuals they hire.

I answer to no masters. I am the master of my own life.

I'm still trying to determine how you are defining what is profit and non profit.

 

are you trying to be funny?

i shop in thrift stores, i buy what's available

for food, see my freegan journals

do you not understand the meaning of capital?

 

You credit corporations with ethics they do not possess and consumers with power they do not have.

Price fixing is illegal in America, but it thrives within the walls of private corporate board rooms. Anyone who watches even a little news has heard of the meetings of OPEC to "set" the price of a barrel of oil. The billion$ in profits afford the oil corporations the luxury of "competitive pricing," but the reality of "cooperation of pricing" takes the moderation of consumer buying out of the equation.

Consumers simply do not have the power that you attribute to them.

.

 

Not at all.

Then it is the evil thrift shops, and not the large corporations who are stealing your money?

I do, but that does not answer my question. Or are you proposing that we should just produce and distribute everything without need of any exchange between the producer and the consumer?

 

That's an opinion, not a fact.

OPEC is NOT "Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Corporations", it is made up of Countries who export oil, essentially a monopoly comprised of members from 12 countries governments, with no member representing the U.S. In the case of oil, the primary consumers are countries, and they do have power to moderate, but the consequences of doing so would not likely be acceptable to the general public, who would experience both rationing, higher energy prices, and job losses as a result. Supply and demand are what allows OPEC to price oil as they wish, as it should be. And with a growing world population, supply and demand are going to become a much greater problem to deal with in the future.

Non government price fixing and monopolies are illegal in the U.S. and if you are aware of any please inform us who they are.

It benefits government and politicians to have you believe that, as it leaces you but one choice and that is to yield your power to the politicians and government. The true source of power is the people who outnumber the government greatly. Government can only acquire power by creating division of the people in ways that allow it to gradually acquire greater power over all the people. It's amazing how cheaply most people can be bought.

 

Funny you should mention that.

The tenacity with which you defend the very people who are responsible for the mess we're presently in has often caused me to wonder if you get paid by the post for your support.

.

 

I think I am gonna change my name to pinko commie and go live under a bridge...the tea party people are starting to freak me out...with their "no big goverment" bullshit. And over to the left we have a bunch of wimps and ass kissers.
All the bastards/bastardettes are fucking bought and paid for by someone that does NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT 99% OF THE OTHER HUMANS ON THIS PLANET.

I bet that 1% is having a blast watching us all squabble about a bunch of bullshit.
Tea-baggers blame Obama

I blame religion.