how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
1689 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to scrummie02
Re: RE:Good to be King said by scrummie02:which he paid for by paying his federal, state and local taxes. Joining the military isn't the high point of the free market, Using entirely taxpayer-funded pay? To oust Saddaam from Kuwait and return it to a non-democratic royal family (who had about as much claim to the country as Saddam did)? Not really to right a wrong, but to stabilize the oil markets (as "grandpineapple" mentioned a few posts ago)?
"Not a high point" is an understatement. I'm glad he served the country. I'd shake his hand and buy him a drink. But, using military service (and particularly *that* stint) to prove he's "a self-made man" is absurd.
said by scrummie02:but it shows there is opportunities for everyone to succeed. I agree. But, like the "market opportunity" of military service, all of our market opportunities are heavily socialized. They aren't "free" markets in the literal sense of the word. They are social moderations to the market because "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." After accepting this premise we can proceed to the legitimacy of individuals questioning whether "the needs of the many" are being met equitably.
If you don't accept the premise, you'll need to explain why (in the face of literally thousands of examples).
said by scrummie02:Plus that's [taking from some to benefit others] not what the forefathers would have wanted: Sorry, but that ship's already left the harbor. If you want a perfectly Libertarian society (with no coercive social contract or moderation of markets) then you have a pretty stiff challenge ahead of you. You're talking about rolling back everything from zoning laws, building codes, public fire and police, libraries, roads, food and drug quality laws. (on, and on, welcome to the realm of the irrelevant fringe).
If you can't accept that we live (and have for hundreds of years) in a world of heavy socialization (taking from some, for the benefit of others) then there's no point debating two entirely different positions.
But, I suspect that you're like most people. They accept all the socialization we have today because, well, they like it. It works for them. They call this baseline a "free market." But, any discussion of additional socialization is deemed to be at odds with the "free market" (as it's conveniently defined).
To me, it seems like a form of self-deception. It boils down to that base human condition: "Who's ox is being gored." We like everything we have now (which entailed a lot of oxes being gored over the past hundreds of years). But, anything new (which might gore *my* ox) is opposed to "the free market."
Quoting the founding fathers is problematic on a number of levels.
1. Shouldn't we ask Native Americans or African Americans about the Founders intent?
2. More specifically the African Americans owned by Jefferson, whom you quoted?
3. The founders exchanged minimalist government (Articles of Confederation) for relatively huge (Federal) government. No generation since them has embraced such (relatively speaking) massive, so-called "nanny" government. Jefferson was on the losing side of that proposition. So, quoting him (when the founders obviously supported more socialization rather than less) could be considered out of context.
4. At the time of creation of the federal government, it was customary for towns to have coercive welfare. When newcomers entered town, the town officers had up to 3 days (or 21 days, I forget) to "warn" the newcomer out of town. Without this warning, the town would be responsible for the newcomer if they became indigent. If the newcomer ignored the warning, their welfare was their own responsibility. If they became indigent (or ill) the town's only responsibility was to return that person to the town they came from (and, if that town warned them out, that town would return him to the previous town, and so on.).
It was customary to warn everyone out, and only include someone in the town's social contract after they had demonstrated their responsibility, not only their work ethic but also their generosity to other town members, etc.
Therefore, it's false to say the founders didn't "take from some and give to others." It was different because the times were different. It was possible to have smaller, more empowered social contracts. But, coercion existed. It's just a matter of degrees. Not absolutes (as if it didn't/doesn't exist).
FWIW: More localized/distributed power was both positive and negative since those smaller, more empowered, local social contracts often violated individual rights such as free speech, or perpetuation of slavery. It's the age old dilemma whether power is more effectively wielded at a higher or lower level. It usually boils down to what someone stands to lose. I.e., the inescapable principle of society: Someone will always lose.
5. Times were vastly different at the time of the founding. They believed in something called Civic Republicanism. The notion of self-sufficient agrarian, citizen-senators. Everyone coerced by society to participate in government. And, if government became overreaching, the ability for individuals to retreat to their lands, self-sufficient and not dependent upon government.
This philosophy was highly dependent upon a "never-ending frontier." For everyone to have the resources to be self-sufficient, not dependent upon anyone else, it required the infinite ability to move out of town, to ungoverned territories, and lay claim to land (often at the expense of "non-persons" such as Native Americans).
So, not only have times changed (we, for the most part, have gone from the simplistic goal of self-sufficient frontiersmen to the equivalent of share-croppers, toiling 8-10 hours a day at something we have no ownership in). But, it's ironic to hear self-styled patriots quoting the founders but ignoring this *enormous* difference which was highly predicated upon communism (coerced participation for the good of all, self-sufficiency at another's expense, those displaced in the boundless frontier).
Today, the closest analogy to the Founder's vision of Civic Republicanism would be Workplace Democracy. A way of converting the equivalent of "share croppers" into a form of ownership. A recognition that the "boundless frontier" necessary for Civic Republicanism doesn't exist, and that to be self-sufficient (not dependent upon government) we require greater ownership (a stake) in what we spend half our waking lives at.
Mark | |
 scrummie02BentleyPremium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
 ·Comcast
| quote:
Using entirely taxpayer-funded pay? To oust Saddaam from Kuwait and return it to a non-democratic royal family (who had about as much claim to the country as Saddam did)? Not really to right a wrong, but to stabilize the oil markets (as "grandpineapple" mentioned a few posts ago)?
"Not a high point" is an understatement. I'm glad he served the country. I'd shake his hand and buy him a drink. But, using military service (and particularly *that* stint) to prove he's "a self-made man" is absurd.
I agree. But, like the "market opportunity" of military service, all of our market opportunities are heavily socialized. They aren't "free" markets in the literal sense of the word. They are social moderations to the market because "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." After accepting this premise we can proceed to the legitimacy of individuals questioning whether "the needs of the many" are being met equitably.
If you don't accept the premise, you'll need to explain why (in the face of literally thousands of examples).
your political points are irrelevant. The point he was making is that there is choices to succeed. We have a free market system (or as close to one as you can get) and the military is an option. It's run by the government, but it opens up other options such as school and the GI Bill and job training.
quote:
Sorry, but that ship's already left the harbor. If you want a perfectly Libertarian society (with no coercive social contract or moderation of markets) then you have a pretty stiff challenge ahead of you. You're talking about rolling back everything from zoning laws, building codes, public fire and police, libraries, roads, food and drug quality laws. (on, and on, welcome to the realm of the irrelevant fringe).
If you can't accept that we live (and have for hundreds of years) in a world of heavy socialization (taking from some, for the benefit of others) then there's no point debating two entirely different positions.
But, I suspect that you're like most people. They accept all the socialization we have today because, well, they like it. It works for them. They call this baseline a "free market." But, any discussion of additional socialization is deemed to be at odds with the "free market" (as it's conveniently defined).
To me, it seems like a form of self-deception. It boils down to that base human condition: "Who's ox is being gored." We like everything we have now (which entailed a lot of oxes being gored over the past hundreds of years). But, anything new (which might gore *my* ox) is opposed to "the free market."
Quoting the founding fathers is problematic on a number of levels.
1. Shouldn't we ask Native Americans or African Americans about the Founders intent?
2. More specifically the African Americans owned by Jefferson, whom you quoted?
3. The founders exchanged minimalist government (Articles of Confederation) for relatively huge (Federal) government. No generation since them has embraced such (relatively speaking) massive, so-called "nanny" government. Jefferson was on the losing side of that proposition. So, quoting him (when the founders obviously supported more socialization rather than less) could be considered out of context.
4. At the time of creation of the federal government, it was customary for towns to have coercive welfare. When newcomers entered town, the town officers had up to 3 days (or 21 days, I forget) to "warn" the newcomer out of town. Without this warning, the town would be responsible for the newcomer if they became indigent. If the newcomer ignored the warning, their welfare was their own responsibility. If they became indigent (or ill) the town's only responsibility was to return that person to the town they came from (and, if that town warned them out, that town would return him to the previous town, and so on.).
It was customary to warn everyone out, and only include someone in the town's social contract after they had demonstrated their responsibility, not only their work ethic but also their generosity to other town members, etc.
Therefore, it's false to say the founders didn't "take from some and give to others." It was different because the times were different. It was possible to have smaller, more empowered social contracts. But, coercion existed. It's just a matter of degrees. Not absolutes (as if it didn't/doesn't exist).
FWIW: More localized/distributed power was both positive and negative since those smaller, more empowered, local social contracts often violated individual rights such as free speech, or perpetuation of slavery. It's the age old dilemma whether power is more effectively wielded at a higher or lower level. It usually boils down to what someone stands to lose. I.e., the inescapable principle of society: Someone will always lose.
5. Times were vastly different at the time of the founding. They believed in something called Civic Republicanism. The notion of self-sufficient agrarian, citizen-senators. Everyone coerced by society to participate in government. And, if government became overreaching, the ability for individuals to retreat to their lands, self-sufficient and not dependent upon government.
This philosophy was highly dependent upon a "never-ending frontier." For everyone to have the resources to be self-sufficient, not dependent upon anyone else, it required the infinite ability to move out of town, to ungoverned territories, and lay claim to land (often at the expense of "non-persons" such as Native Americans).
So, not only have times changed (we, for the most part, have gone from the simplistic goal of self-sufficient frontiersmen to the equivalent of share-croppers, toiling 8-10 hours a day at something we have no ownership in). But, it's ironic to hear self-styled patriots quoting the founders but ignoring this *enormous* difference which was highly predicated upon communism (coerced participation for the good of all, self-sufficiency at another's expense, those displaced in the boundless frontier).
Today, the closest analogy to the Founder's vision of Civic Republicanism would be Workplace Democracy. A way of converting the equivalent of "share croppers" into a form of ownership. A recognition that the "boundless frontier" necessary for Civic Republicanism doesn't exist, and that to be self-sufficient (not dependent upon government) we require greater ownership (a stake) in what we spend half our waking lives at.
Mark
No one is talking about living a perfect libertarian society, what they are talking about is making things as free market as possible. There isn't a need for the government to step in where they don't have to. The things you mentioned are more of a necessity but putting a cap on how much CEO's can earn isn't.
1. Shouldn't we ask Native Americans or African Americans about the Founders intent? Irrelevant now.
2. More specifically the African Americans owned by Jefferson, whom you quoted? Also irrelevant now. Slavery is illegal and immoral. If there is any question about it the Constitution even forbids it.
3. The founders exchanged minimalist government (Articles of Confederation) for relatively huge (Federal) government. No generation since them has embraced such (relatively speaking) massive, so-called "nanny" government. Jefferson was on the losing side of that proposition. So, quoting him (when the founders obviously supported more socialization rather than less) could be considered out of context. The Articles failed and that is why the Constitution was written. It gave the federal govt. more leverage but reserved the rest for the states and the people. It states that in the 10th Amendment. There was disagreements back then about how much the F.G. should be granted but a consensus was obviously made.
4. And this is reflected on government policy how? It wasn't the founders that came up with this law and I'm sure not every town had this policy. Living in an agrarian farm society, some may have taken that stance. But it isn't that different from now, if you can't contribute to your company you're let go.
5. Your share-croppers analogy is also false. I get stock options in my job (as well as other's I've applied for) so I have stake in the company. Just because times have changed doesn't mean the basic principals should. It's ironic for people to speak that way because most of them think certain Constitutional Amendments are also obsolete and should be banned, thus taking away more freedoms. Those are the same people that seem to ignore the fact they live in one of the more free societies in the world and expect privacy and the government to stay out of their business but want to be provided for like they're children still.
--
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. " - Thomas Jefferson | |
|
