Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Constitution As Regime
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 591302" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>You also get a hint that some of our founders involvement in rebellion to the crown was not for the most alltruistic and noble of terms! Even the great and grand <u><span style="color: red">Boston Tea Party</span></u> memorialized in American myth was more about global trade, monopoly and protection of mercantile turf than it was some grand act in the name of liberty and freedom. The historical grand families of Northeastern business elite must ROTFL<span style="font-size: 9px">their</span><span style="font-size: 10px">AO everytime a news cast of the "Tea Parties" is shown on the nightly news as at least they understand what the act itself was all about. Gives them something to laugh at when they meet in the "Grove" to discuss the many ways to cook hamburger. Pardon me as it's my way of having fun with the advocates of conspiracy to the grand schemes of the Burgerbuilders!</span></p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p></p><p>As Dilorenzo pointed out, at least George Will had the honesty of admitting the truth but then again how hard is it to admit the truth when you wholeheartedly agree with it. What can't be easily defended by enumierated powers in the Constitution can be easily do so via international treaty and yet again, the Constitution has failed to maintain it's ability to limit. Minarchist or at best wanna-be's like Will (not really but for the sake of discussion) would berate liberals for gov't and market interventions and yet then turn around themselves and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080602933.html" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: red">propose gov't interventions</span></u></a>under the illusion that these are less intrusive and satisfy themselves on the premise of being a better managerial state. Even in 2008' when the Paulson plan of intervention was being discussed, that bulwark of free market and economic liberty in Forbes magazine <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/03/bailout-constitutional-hamilton-oped-cx_jb_1003bowyer.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">condemned such idealism of gov't limitation</span> </a>and defended the very first efforts which happened to be at the hands of Hamilton. Never met a capitalist yet unwilling to take a gov't freebie!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /> Well they paid for it in taxes you say! Wait a minute, when other means of taxation are discussed you defend the poor by saying such taxes would be passed on to the consumer and that corporations pay no taxes. Hmmm cake and eating it too! <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p></p><p>The sad part is these same people would call what they do an operation of <strong>Free Market </strong>capitalism. I have no problem with the capitialism part but the <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: red">Free Market</span></u></a> part is an absolute lie and fraud. BTW, the easiest way to determine if an act is free market or capitalist is very simple. In the true free market, it's an even exchange, a win-win if you will whereas in <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red"><u>capitalism</u></span></a> the driving force is competition with winners and losers. Now this in itself is not bad if the market remains free, open and honest and consumers of goods or services are free to choose which allows the best allocation of resources to be distributed. Even the medium of exchange itself is determined by the 2 parties and now dictated too by <a href="http://mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_3.pdf" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: red">legal tender laws.</span></u></a></p><p></p><p>I wonder how subserviant the African American community would have been to white America had there been no legal tender laws and within their own community that could have converted their labor into their own medium of exchange thus building their own wealth and "competing" head to head with the white controlled economy? Now that's a question you have to enter some really radical circles to discuss! African Americans were victims as much from lack of true free market as from anything else and this in itself empowered racist political policies because it empowered white society with control by which goods and services are exchanged. Gov't therefore enforced this system of control as it benefitted from the tax mechanism attached to it. Self interests of gov't over the interests of the individual while protecting market monopoly of the private oligarchy?<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/surprised.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":surprised:" title="Surprised :surprised:" data-shortname=":surprised:" /><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p></p><p>Capitalism however tends to be tied to the fact that the winners in order to maintain a winning record encourage gov't through it's powers of force to then grant them market priviledge such as the <a href="http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-perils-of-positive-rights/" target="_blank"><u><span style="color: red">positive right</span></u></a> of incorporation which again through use of the commerce clause (enumeriated powers of Congress) is defended by the Constitution. Going further to erode the free market, capitalism can quietly and often secretly demand that gov't regulate the market place with costly rules that are easily absorbed by the larger established corporations whose lawyers and think tanks wrote the rules to begin with but make it nearly impossible for smaller upstart firms with small market reach to even go into business much less rise to compete with the larger monsters. Social Healthcare anyone? <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=zEGj1moYJ_0C&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=FDR%3EThe+National+Recovery+Act%3Eheads+of+industry&source=bl&ots=p98ymKmZUP&sig=mkGcvbuHI8zHppnBpStxdTENU1E&hl=en&ei=B7iaSuaROIKRtgfcxcTWBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&friend=false" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">Big business loves and benefits from Big Government and always has!</span></a></p><p></p><p>The minarchist finds this OK as gov't should support and fund businesses that create jobs and expand the tax base (gov't self interest again and protecting the winners) which in turn fosters more gov't. Since the inception of Reaganomics and the myth of trickle down, it is true that gov't tax revenues have exploded in this nearly 30 year dreamstate truly proving beyond doubt that this method does work on the revenue side. However, during this same period <span style="color: red">gov't itself has grown</span> and even more amazing is the fact that prior to President Obama being sworn in, 20 of the 28 years of the last 30 and since 1950' the "limited gov't" party has controlled the Federal Presidency and had more influence in Congress than has been led to believe in 36 of those 58 years. But in that timeframe of originalist/constitutionalists government, it's power has grown to such levels to even make Marx and Lenin or II Duce proud. Even Clinton never really monkeyed with the core of trickle down as much as the Donkey crowd would love to believe but then gov't (demorat or republicon) is nothing more than Criss Angel writ large.</p><p></p><p>I understand and appreciate where you come from as I too was a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism" target="_blank"><span style="color: red"><u>minarchist </u></span></a>(very popular belief and very comfortable too) from the mid 70's till the late 90's although it was George Bush/Dick Cheney et al who pushed me over the edge to make me realize it and face it to go the next logical step. The other side of this coin is that I don't care how you live or for that matter how anyone else here wants to live, if they want to be communist, fascists, neo-cons, neo-lib, neo-drunks, I don't care. Have at it. Chose to live the life you want too and if you can find others who want to join your group freely and without force or fraud I'm all for it. But we don't live in a country where people are free to choose and make those kinds of choices do we? We are forced, compelled and even frauded into living a very specific form of life according to public policy decided on another fraud called mobocracy or what the greeks called <span style="color: red"><strong><u>Ochlocracy</u></strong></span><strong>. </strong>But the mob is always controlled and driven by <span style="color: red"><u>an oligarchy</u></span> whose hand we sense and know it's there but are never really allowed to fully see. So much for President Transparency right? <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /> Even the so-called left <u><span style="color: red">has concerns</span></u> over oligarchy. In 2009' we have those concerned over a <span style="color: red"><u>liberal oligarchy</u></span> but when one takes off the glasses of party politics, it's about impossible to distingish between the 2 oligarchy players. If one didn't know better, one would think the same entity controls bothsides. Begs the question do we in fact know better?<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p></p><p>Limited Gov't IMO is an <u><span style="color: red">Impossible Dream</span></u> in that the nature of gov't is force and complusion and when it's interests override the interest of the individual, it's limitations will be set aside in the name of it's own self interests or rather the persons who've managed to obtain control of it. The Lord Acton axiom again.</p><p></p><p>Kevin Carson at the Center for a Stateless Society got it right in many respects when he asked, <a href="http://c4ss.org/content/984" target="_blank"><span style="color: red"><u>"Mother, Should I Trust the Government?"</u></span></a></p><p></p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/peaceful.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":peaceful:" title="Peaceful :peaceful:" data-shortname=":peaceful:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 591302, member: 2189"] You also get a hint that some of our founders involvement in rebellion to the crown was not for the most alltruistic and noble of terms! Even the great and grand [U][COLOR=red]Boston Tea Party[/COLOR][/U] memorialized in American myth was more about global trade, monopoly and protection of mercantile turf than it was some grand act in the name of liberty and freedom. The historical grand families of Northeastern business elite must ROTFL[SIZE=1]their[/SIZE][SIZE=2]AO everytime a news cast of the "Tea Parties" is shown on the nightly news as at least they understand what the act itself was all about. Gives them something to laugh at when they meet in the "Grove" to discuss the many ways to cook hamburger. Pardon me as it's my way of having fun with the advocates of conspiracy to the grand schemes of the Burgerbuilders![/SIZE] :wink2: As Dilorenzo pointed out, at least George Will had the honesty of admitting the truth but then again how hard is it to admit the truth when you wholeheartedly agree with it. What can't be easily defended by enumierated powers in the Constitution can be easily do so via international treaty and yet again, the Constitution has failed to maintain it's ability to limit. Minarchist or at best wanna-be's like Will (not really but for the sake of discussion) would berate liberals for gov't and market interventions and yet then turn around themselves and [URL='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080602933.html'][U][COLOR=red]propose gov't interventions[/COLOR][/U][/URL]under the illusion that these are less intrusive and satisfy themselves on the premise of being a better managerial state. Even in 2008' when the Paulson plan of intervention was being discussed, that bulwark of free market and economic liberty in Forbes magazine [URL='http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/03/bailout-constitutional-hamilton-oped-cx_jb_1003bowyer.html'][COLOR=red]condemned such idealism of gov't limitation[/COLOR] [/URL]and defended the very first efforts which happened to be at the hands of Hamilton. Never met a capitalist yet unwilling to take a gov't freebie! :happy-very: Well they paid for it in taxes you say! Wait a minute, when other means of taxation are discussed you defend the poor by saying such taxes would be passed on to the consumer and that corporations pay no taxes. Hmmm cake and eating it too! :wink2: The sad part is these same people would call what they do an operation of [B]Free Market [/B]capitalism. I have no problem with the capitialism part but the [URL='http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html'][U][COLOR=red]Free Market[/COLOR][/U][/URL] part is an absolute lie and fraud. BTW, the easiest way to determine if an act is free market or capitalist is very simple. In the true free market, it's an even exchange, a win-win if you will whereas in [URL='http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html'][COLOR=red][U]capitalism[/U][/COLOR][/URL] the driving force is competition with winners and losers. Now this in itself is not bad if the market remains free, open and honest and consumers of goods or services are free to choose which allows the best allocation of resources to be distributed. Even the medium of exchange itself is determined by the 2 parties and now dictated too by [URL='http://mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_3.pdf'][U][COLOR=red]legal tender laws.[/COLOR][/U][/URL] I wonder how subserviant the African American community would have been to white America had there been no legal tender laws and within their own community that could have converted their labor into their own medium of exchange thus building their own wealth and "competing" head to head with the white controlled economy? Now that's a question you have to enter some really radical circles to discuss! African Americans were victims as much from lack of true free market as from anything else and this in itself empowered racist political policies because it empowered white society with control by which goods and services are exchanged. Gov't therefore enforced this system of control as it benefitted from the tax mechanism attached to it. Self interests of gov't over the interests of the individual while protecting market monopoly of the private oligarchy?:surprised::wink2: Capitalism however tends to be tied to the fact that the winners in order to maintain a winning record encourage gov't through it's powers of force to then grant them market priviledge such as the [URL='http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-perils-of-positive-rights/'][U][COLOR=red]positive right[/COLOR][/U][/URL] of incorporation which again through use of the commerce clause (enumeriated powers of Congress) is defended by the Constitution. Going further to erode the free market, capitalism can quietly and often secretly demand that gov't regulate the market place with costly rules that are easily absorbed by the larger established corporations whose lawyers and think tanks wrote the rules to begin with but make it nearly impossible for smaller upstart firms with small market reach to even go into business much less rise to compete with the larger monsters. Social Healthcare anyone? [URL='http://books.google.com/books?id=zEGj1moYJ_0C&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=FDR%3EThe+National+Recovery+Act%3Eheads+of+industry&source=bl&ots=p98ymKmZUP&sig=mkGcvbuHI8zHppnBpStxdTENU1E&hl=en&ei=B7iaSuaROIKRtgfcxcTWBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&friend=false'][COLOR=red]Big business loves and benefits from Big Government and always has![/COLOR][/URL] The minarchist finds this OK as gov't should support and fund businesses that create jobs and expand the tax base (gov't self interest again and protecting the winners) which in turn fosters more gov't. Since the inception of Reaganomics and the myth of trickle down, it is true that gov't tax revenues have exploded in this nearly 30 year dreamstate truly proving beyond doubt that this method does work on the revenue side. However, during this same period [COLOR=red]gov't itself has grown[/COLOR] and even more amazing is the fact that prior to President Obama being sworn in, 20 of the 28 years of the last 30 and since 1950' the "limited gov't" party has controlled the Federal Presidency and had more influence in Congress than has been led to believe in 36 of those 58 years. But in that timeframe of originalist/constitutionalists government, it's power has grown to such levels to even make Marx and Lenin or II Duce proud. Even Clinton never really monkeyed with the core of trickle down as much as the Donkey crowd would love to believe but then gov't (demorat or republicon) is nothing more than Criss Angel writ large. I understand and appreciate where you come from as I too was a [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism'][COLOR=red][U]minarchist [/U][/COLOR][/URL](very popular belief and very comfortable too) from the mid 70's till the late 90's although it was George Bush/Dick Cheney et al who pushed me over the edge to make me realize it and face it to go the next logical step. The other side of this coin is that I don't care how you live or for that matter how anyone else here wants to live, if they want to be communist, fascists, neo-cons, neo-lib, neo-drunks, I don't care. Have at it. Chose to live the life you want too and if you can find others who want to join your group freely and without force or fraud I'm all for it. But we don't live in a country where people are free to choose and make those kinds of choices do we? We are forced, compelled and even frauded into living a very specific form of life according to public policy decided on another fraud called mobocracy or what the greeks called [COLOR=red][B][U]Ochlocracy[/U][/B][/COLOR][B]. [/B]But the mob is always controlled and driven by [COLOR=red][U]an oligarchy[/U][/COLOR] whose hand we sense and know it's there but are never really allowed to fully see. So much for President Transparency right? :happy-very: Even the so-called left [U][COLOR=red]has concerns[/COLOR][/U] over oligarchy. In 2009' we have those concerned over a [COLOR=red][U]liberal oligarchy[/U][/COLOR] but when one takes off the glasses of party politics, it's about impossible to distingish between the 2 oligarchy players. If one didn't know better, one would think the same entity controls bothsides. Begs the question do we in fact know better?:wink2: Limited Gov't IMO is an [U][COLOR=red]Impossible Dream[/COLOR][/U] in that the nature of gov't is force and complusion and when it's interests override the interest of the individual, it's limitations will be set aside in the name of it's own self interests or rather the persons who've managed to obtain control of it. The Lord Acton axiom again. Kevin Carson at the Center for a Stateless Society got it right in many respects when he asked, [URL='http://c4ss.org/content/984'][COLOR=red][U]"Mother, Should I Trust the Government?"[/U][/COLOR][/URL] :peaceful: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Constitution As Regime
Top