On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:06:14 +0000, Straydog wrote:
> 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.
That is _NOT_ the same as a government controlled by the people. And all
the pretentiousness on the planet will not change that fact of reality.
> 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).
I said that you cannot control the powerful by ass kissing and asking them
top be nice.
>>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.
Yet, this is not the same as an ungoverned nobility or an oligarchy. I
THINK the uncontrolled nobility has always deteriorated to feudalism, but
that nay be wrong. I am not going to go read all the history books on the
planet to sup****t this one point. It deems quite probable that feudalism
would result from the ego pretty certainly.
> 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.
Jesus is dead. His policies live on bit the Republicans are doing
something about that as well. Your suggestion seems to be "pot luck" at
best.
>> 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.
I would be a real dope to disagree with that and I won't but to the extent
that I will not spend the rest of my life or even the next hour
attempting to read your recommended history books.
>>> 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.
We actually have no disagreement on this. We both KNOW that the ego must
be controlled by a force outside the individual egoists. You, for
whatever reason, chose monarchy and I chose a "republican form of
government". It may be that we are both somewhat correct and that some
hybrid would work best.
>>>> > 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.
The point is that I am doing the "interpretation" as opposed to some
"middle man" inserting and interpretation. The other difference is that I
give the DIRECT sources for the stuff I am "interpreting" and invite
others to do their own interpretation. I do not say "go read all the
books in the library and get back to me when you are done".
> 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.
Of course. The writings of Madison are his "interpretations" seen in a
way that justifies his point of view. But I am concerned only with
piecing together his "interpretations", if you will, into a solid frame
that shows what he was attempting to _SELL_ to the people of America at
the time. As to his own personal black hearted designs I have no real
comment.
>> The
>>speeches and correspondence of Madison and Jefferson are not
>>"interpretations".
>
> Same response as above applies here, too.
(snore)
>>>> 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.
So much to do.... So little time.
> 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.
Why would I disagree and why even think these "points" would be "issues"?
>> 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.
Such is the hazard of reading the personally and
politically motivated interpretations of others.
>>> 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?
It is not a wrong or a right. It just is.
>>> 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.
We do not actually disagree here either. When we get to the bottom of all
this verbiage I will try to "sum up" and see what the differences might
be.
>>>> 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 do not take issue with it.
>>>> 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.
The history proves your point. When the "happenings" are reviewed we see
that the original design was flawed, that the correction was attempted and
that it was subverted and failed, and that the power hungry then took
advantage of the "loophole". They started much earlier than 1921, but the
real assault took place at that time.
>>>> 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.
Why bring up Nazi? The discussion is about controlling the ill effects
of the ego regardless of how it is manifested.
>>> 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.
I fail to see how this is relevant but for some sort of misunderstanding.
The smaller districts are certainly LESS subject to corruption. As the
pool of voters shrinks the "everyone knows everyone else" reality becomes
much more predominant. The people who "count the votes" are the local
people as opposed to some "ringer from Chicago" so that can't be the
point. My recommended expansion has absolutely nothing to do with how the
votes that select representatives are cast or counted. This is a
"strawman" or just a misunderstanding.
>>> 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.
That will certainly move the ball forward, won't it. Good grief.
>> 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).
That is a key point that must be addressed. We are not now debating the
efficacy of the proposal. We are debating the "how to get it done".
>> 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.
Here again, we are actually talking about implementation as opposed to
propriety of the solution. Surely you will agree that smaller
constituencies are a boon to true representative nature of the
representative; that the representative is more "like" those being
represented as the group size is decreased.
We are actually looking here at how to _ENFORCE_ the oath of office that
would get someone elected in the first place. --- implementation.
>> 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.
Which implies that you are a C-Span junkie looking at every bill. Why not
just totally outlaw earmarks by insisting that the representative not vote
for such legislation? If the earmark is something worth doing it wouldn't
be an earmark.
>>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.
And the smaller the group the less diverse would be the opinion(s) and the
more accountable the representative will be.
> But, thank you for taking the time to explain YOUR viewpoint.
I appreciate the op****tunity to clarify my proposal. Your "alternative"
seems to be authoritarianism in one form or another. That solution was
rejected at the time America was created and I hope it will be rejected
now. I have convinced myself over the last 6 years that expanding the
role of the common people in their government is the correct answer to our
current problems. A "republican form of government" will work so long as
the member****p of the House is controlled by "Article the First" as it
came from the House and before it was destroyed in committee by the power
seekers. Tat "algorithm" would have 1600 __**VOTING**__members in the
House at present, or 6000.
--
"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
|
