Lots of comments farther down.....
On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:07:40 -0700, The Trucker <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:10:58 -0700, Stray Dog wrote:
>
>> On May 16, 11:46 am, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:24:50 -0700, Stray Dog wrote:
>>> > On May 15, 12:33 pm, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:18:17 -0700, BobR wrote:
>>> >> > On May 15, 8:22 am, Stray Dog <straydog2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
deleted
>>> > Also, if you read some history of the Incas, you will find that they
>>> > did have a successufl socialist organization of society and it
lasted
>>> > some 250 years till the conquistadors came.
>>>
>>> > But it has happened slowly
>>> >> through the combined use of a highly progressive income tax and
government
>>> >> infrastructure investments.
>>>
>>> > There was a big wealth divide before the great depression and during
>>> > FDR's time, the taxes on the rich were increased. Same deal in
>>> > England before the 1800s. The rich had the castles and mansions.
Once
>>> > the taxes went on, then the rich could not afford to keep their
>>> > castles and mansions. I saw the Hearst castle in California back in
>>> > late 1960s. It was huge. Hearst had to give it up when taxes went
up,
>>> > now its a tourist spot.
>>>
>>> > But that observation begs the real question.
>>> >> And that is how to maintain a government that would use such
methods to
>>> >> prevent the harm caused by extreme disparity in power and wealth.
>>>
>>> > Very very good question. My first, off the top of my head answer, is
>>> > you gotta keep the corruption down.
>>>
>>> Sure....
>>
>> I could throw in a few other factors but I don't want to present
>> myself as one of those "elitist" economists.
>> (a lot of them are full of crap, too).
>>
>>> > The
>>> >> removal of government is not the answer. The control of government
by the
>>> >> common people as well as the rich _IS_.
>>>
>>> > Other answer: convince the rich that money, more money, and even
more
>>> > money is not a good goal.
>>>
>>> That is not an achievable objective.
>>
>> I beg and petition to differ. I have been also been paying attention
>> to philanthropic trends and some of these guys actually do have
>> feelings for the powerless/broke people in the world. Warren Buffet,
>> for example, has made many public statements in recent years to that
>> effect. Bill Gates, in his old age, might be feeling a bit guilty over
>> his earlier robber-baronism since he's trying to spend some money on
>> good causes. Mary Astor and Leona Helmsley (both recently died) were
>> compared for their styles of giving to charity before they died in
>> some magazine and it was a big deal for me. There _are_ some sensitive
>> rich people out there. Then, we have the Walton family (survivors
>> worth $100 bil, by the way) and the cheapest, chintziest low
>> cheapskates of all studied: they gave away less than one percent of
>> their wealth and out of the top 100-200 that were studied, there were
>> a lot of rich guys who were giving away 10-20-even 50% of their
>> booty.
>>
>> So, you can't say what you said.
>
>I can say whatever I want. And so can you. But I want to be very clear
in
>my position: I do not want to be a part of a society that is dependent
>upon the philanthropic actions of the nobility.
Why? We have "philanthropic" actions by the govt (eg. welfare of
various sorts, Medicaid) and I would not refrain from using them if I
needed them.
You said one of my ideas was an unacheivable objective (read the above
exchange again) and yet I can cite articles where some rich guys made
large contributions to build hospitals, wings, ...all kinds of things
that benefit society rather than some little spoiled-brat narrow
interest of interest to only a few (some obscure art museum, for
example).
>The citing of members of
>the nobility who, in your opinion, are philanthropists is not sufficient
>in convincing me that rule by the nobility is a good idea.
There have actually been quite serious and deep and detailed
discussions by many philosophers and other "fancy" people over many
years that an enlightened monarchy might be, in the final analysis,
the best form of government. This is really an idea quite separate
from a plutocracy. My reading of history has taught me that there
actually were a few kings and emperors who did not enrich themselves
at the same time they ruled but did rule in a manner that led to both
peace and prosperity and most if not all that was ever written about
these rulers indicated that the people under the rule appreciated what
they had, at least until the next war which in many cases was caused
by external forces not under the control of that king or emperor.
> Your basic
>position is "conservative" and mine is not.
My position is: lets look at all of what has happened in recorded
history and try to learn from it rather than examine these issues with
a prejudiced mindset that requires that we throw out anything not
consistent with the mindset.
>> You may as well tell that bull that
>>> you don't like what he is doing to that cow.
>>
>> That's beyond the scope of this post.
>
>It was an analogy. You cannot alter the ego of the rich.
The ego of the rich can be a very serious problem, but you can also
have snobery from the bottom, too. Where that ego hurts us is when it
drives the rich to continue bilking the poor in a never-ending quest
to satisfy an insatiable appetite for even more money. The ego of the
power-driven, power-seeking control freaks (leading to Hitlers,
Stalins, Ghengis Khans, King Bush II [wrt Iraq], etc.) is maybe an
even more serious pathology since, beyond impoveri****ng people, it
leads to unjustifiable destruction, pain, and death.
>>> > I would highly recommend a better
>>> >> understanding of the pur****ted goals of the United States
Government at
>>> >> its inception.
>>>
>>> > There are a few books out there that indicate the goals of the USA
>>> > were not much different than anyone else: power, expansion,
>>> > development, etc.
>>>
>>> I rather like just reading the actual history and making my own
>>> analysis of why people did what they did.
>>
>> Well, two responses to that. i) just ask where the money/power ended
>> up and how that happened, and ii) lots of history depends on who you
>> read. I can provide titles.
>
>The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are not "interpretations".
I am sure that no matter what is written, all readers will interpret
them favorably or not, to some degree. I am sure that those writings,
themselves, depend absolutely on the authors' interpretationis of what
they saw and how they understood what they saw before they put pen to
paper.
> The
>speeches and correspondence of Madison and Jefferson are not
>"interpretations".
Same response as above applies here, too.
>>> Their actions typically give us
>>> a clue as to what they were trying to accomplish. And to be sure, all
of
>>> those things (power, etc) were considered in the birth of the USA. I
will
>>> even admit that the "founding fathers" were primarily plutocrats at
heart
>>> and that they wanted some sort of nobility to form here in the United
>>> States just as it was in Europe.
>>
>> Bingo, bingo, bingo. Or were you reading Charles Beard's book "The
>> Economic Interpretation of the Constitution"? Where, yes, the robber-
>> barons really were writing our constitution to benefit the robber-
>> barons, right from the beginings?
>
>I try not to read the interpretations of others, thanks.
1. Then you have been missing something.
2. Unless there is an unreasonable amount of dogmatic preferential
acceptance of someone's "religion", we all need to interpret our
"inputs" and explain them to ourselves, one way or the other, and put
it all into some kind of mental framework that we can understand,
completely or incompletely.
> My stuff comes
>right out of the pipe.
My stuff comes from everywhere and sometimes those interpretations are
so different from the original material that the original authors are
going one way and all the readers are going in the opposite
directions.
>> And, by the way, this is a very hot debate in certain circles in
>> history.
>
>Try as they will, the historians will interpret. They are human.
And, what is wrong with that?
>> Most of the people that created the
>>> United States Constitution saw themselves and their descendants as
BEING
>>> that nobility and deserving of that role due to their knowledge and
>>> intellect.
>>
>> And, that "imperitive" really got cranked up in the early 1900s and I
>> can provide a reference for that, too.
>>
>>> But there is another side to this coin and that was the need to "sell"
>>> that contract to the people. The "founders" had to play "lets make a
>>> a deal" and there were certain things that they had to "give up" in
order
>>> to get the Constitution ratified. And the point I am making here is
that
>>> the US Constitution was a "deal" between those that wrote the rules
and
>>> those who accepted the rules. Madison himself stated that the
"intent" of
>>> the founders was secondary to understanding of those that ratified;
that
>>> the Constitution derives its power from the consent of the governed.
That
>>> was true then and it is true now.
>>
>> Yeah, but it all gets wiped out at the electoral college level, AND
>> the fact that we elect senators and representatives who then, THEY not
>> us, go on and write the laws, etc. We underlings really don't get to
>> do anything except chose the lessor of evils every 2-4 years.
>
>Whine, whine, whine....... The discussion needs to center on the history
>and an understanding of the motivations. But the discussion must also
>encompass proper solutions to the problem. I will say that attempting a
>"fix" at the top is like talking to that bull.
Decisions and actions all come, sooner or later, from power centers,
whether they are revolutionary or established. History shows many
examples of plans that crashed and burned and some examples of clever
if not brilliant rule that preserved order and had desireable
outcomes. However, it is always possible to ask a question and get a
minority dissenting opinion, so...nothing will ever be perfect.
>>> To understand Constitutionality or to understand what America _IS_ one
>>> must actually read and appreciate the actual history of the
ratification.
>>
>> I think this is im****tant and I thank you for pointing it out.
>> However, I think a lot of what is in the Constitution is subverted by
>> the presence of monetary power out there, corruption, high-powered
>> lawyers, and all kinds of manipulative infrastructures designed to
>> gain power over underlings.
You did not respond to this.
>>> I hope I make a very small contribution to that understanding at:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_The_First
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> http://www.greatervoice.org/extend/Madison.php
>>>
>>> <<< deletia >>>
>>>
>>> Regardless of what evil lurked in the soul of James Madison, his
actions
>>> are indicative of what he was "selling" to the American people. And
it
>>> seems impossible to misinterpret Federalist 55 through Federalist 58
on
>>> the subject of "representation" for the people in their government.
>>
>> OK, just look at Gerrymandering and tell me that was done to benefit
>> the people?
>
>Same crap. It happened in 1929. This is as close to the actual pipe I
can
>get:
See below...
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reap****tionment_Act_of_1929
-------------
> The Reap****tionment Act of 1929 (ch. 28, 46 Stat. 21, 2 U.S.C. 2a,
> enacted 1929-06-18) was a combined census and reap****tionment bill
passed
> by the United States Congress which established a permanent method for
> ap****tioning a constant 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives
> according to each census. The bill neither repealed nor restated the
> requirements of the previous ap****tionment acts - that districts be
> contiguous, compact, and equally populated.
>
> It was not clear if these requirements were still in effect until the
>Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the matter of Wood v. Broom,
>287 U.S. 1 (1932) that the provisions of each ap****tionment act affected
>only the ap****tionment for which they were written. Thus the size and
>population requirements, last stated in the Ap****tionment Act of 1911,
>expired immediately with the enactment of the subsequent Ap****tionment
>Act.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Prior to this hijacking of representative government there was no
> gerrymandering.
The point I was trying to make is that brilliant ideas for rule can be
subverted by various kinds of tricks and thus those brilliant ideas
become worthless.
>>> There is no silver bullet that can be fired at the heart of despotism,
no
>>> wooden stake to be plunged into the heart of such malice, that will
>>> arrest and confine such evil over time. Vigilance is the price of
>>> freedom and liberty and we must constantly guard against the forces of
>>> aristocracy and plutocracy
>>
>> Or...the Nazi seizure of power in 1933.
You didn't respond to this, either.
>> or they will, in fact, have their way. We have
>>> failed in our responsibility to prevent the deterioration of our
freedoms
>>> and our liberty.
>>
>> John Strachey said once that if you can organize ten men, then you can
>> control a hundred. Well, sometimes. Or...you can fool enough of the
>> people enough of the time.
>
>The fact that we have "The best Congress money can buy" is not seriously
>debated. The current "Campaign Finance Reform" efforts are but a
>diversion. CFR has been done over and over. The Supremes recently ruled
>that the last CFR was, at least in part, unconstitutional. My own
>proposal is the best example if a proper solution I have seen.
See below..
>Instant Runoff Voting and similar systems of balloting address the need
>for improvements in discerning the will of the people in extremely large
>electoral arenas. The shrinking of electoral districts to encompass
>fewer people and an insistence on compactness would do more to promote
>representative government than would even IRV.
My greatest fear is the electronic voting system which can be hacked
and in the last election there was evidence that it was but the whole
thing blew over. It would be simple to have a computer program "throw"
a percentage of cast votes to a different party and then when the
election is over, self-erase the hack so it would be impossible to
detect it. That is all in addition to all the older techniques of
election fraud.
>> That failure happened very early on with the failure
>>> of the very first constitutional amendment and manifested itself in
1921
>>> when the House of Representatives failed to reap****tion the House in
>>> respect of a very steep rise in population and the ****ft of population
>>> from rural to urban. This, according to many, was a Constitutional
breach.
>>> But we failed even more certainly when we allowed the Congress to
limit
>>> the representation to only 425 members in 1929.
>>
>> Here is another problem: In most if not all of Latin America, most of
>> the constitutions of those governments were patterned after the US
>> Constitution. What was the problem? Those constitutions were never
>> enforced.
>>
>> Look what we have today: The Supreme Court actually making laws. An
>> unelected body of "powerful" people.
>
>So what will you _do_ about it?
Sit here and tell you that your "pipe dreams" are all pretty much for
naught.
> Will you insist that YOUR representative
>work to expand the representation?
Why would my representative listen to me, specifically, when the rep's
constituency will surely have a wide range of conflicting opinions
(read any newspaper for dissent from the people).
> Will you actually consider a candidate
>for office that takes a blood oath to vote as the majority of the people
>in his/her district WANT on any legislation that is relatively
>controversial?
I would really love it if a candidate really did this. But, we don't
vote that often for specific legislation and most of the time we vote
for a rep who then goes on and does what he/she thinks, like it or
not.
> Will you refuse to vote for any representative that votes
>yes on a bill that has an earmark?
All depends on the situation. Maybe the earmark is something that
should be done.
>That suit wearing ass is supposed to represent _YOU_.
Its a nice idea but in practice there will always be a diversity of
opinion and not all issues have clear-cut answers or solutions.
But, thank you for taking the time to explain YOUR viewpoint.
>--
>"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
>of society but the people themselves; and
>if we think them not enlightened enough to
>exercise their control with a wholesome
>discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
>them, but to inform their discretion by
>education." - Thomas Jefferson
>http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
>
|
