What is the opposite of communism? Meaning, what is the opposite of perfectly even pay and distribution of wealth?
If Marx's axiom "From each acording to ability, to each according to need", is the philosophical heart of pure communisim, then what is the other extreme?
If the other extreme perhaps is the hyper/over concentration of wealth and goods in the hands of one person (or a very limited few), what do we call that? Is that a good thing?
The line of the right today is that any discussion of taxing the rich is communism/socialism, my reply is, what is the opposite, what is it that you desire? No control? Meaning, in effect, no restraint on the ability of the powerful to control things further, to concentrate wealth further, to acquire further, far beyond the level which we'd consider ethical, fair, or just.
If communism is the left end of that scale, what is the right end? Fascism? That's not really applicable, perhaps it's feudalism?
So, in contrast to communism, the right would promote feudalism, the excessive concentration of wealth into the hands of only a very very small few.
Why is pursuing something in the middle, wrong? When did abandoning a concern for what will benefit the most, without unfairly stripping those with the best ideas of ANY ability to be fairly compensated, when did that become wrong?
The obvious answer is, it didn't, but we've forgotten it and instead use increadibly base and foolish arguments like taxing the rich in measure to their benefit, as socialism. No one said they'd be stripped of all assets, no one. When it was enacted in the 30's, 40's and 50's (meaning higher tax rates), no one called it communism then. It wasn't, and we understood it. It was recognizing those with the most, have the most ability to pay, and vapid questions from air-head reporters to Joe Biden don't suddenly make progressive taxation anything akin to communism - but even if it did, is feudalism somehow better? Has it worked any better?
Clearly not, but given we don't understand that each extreme is a problem, we don't understand that the opposite of perfectly even distribution both exists, and is wrong, well clearly we don't even know what the definitions of simple words are anymore just as we don't grasp basic economic theory any more.
Very well argued, and I agree.
ReplyDeleteNice straw man argument. Instead of guessing what we promote, why don't you ask?
ReplyDeleteIndividual liberties, limited government, free markets, respect for private property rights... It used to be called "liberalism" as in 'liberty', the quality or state of being free. That was until the term was taken by FDR interventionists. That's not a snipe, it's historical fact. Those "in the know," so to speak now call it "Classical Liberalism," as in what 'liberal' used to mean.
This is the total opposite of feudalism, & for that matter Communism.
Feudalism is a complex societal hierarchy of rights & duties, much like the Caste system in India. It's where the levels of European royalty comes from: king, duke, lord, serf. A serf has few rights but many duties, a king has many rights & few duties. This is the antithesis of Classical Liberalism.
C.L. says that our natural state is to be free. It is the way we were created. We are all created with rights that are just part of nature. Government does not create rights or grant rights, its proper roll is to protect the rights of the individual.
Communism, despite the propaganda, results in, what you call the exact opposite of communism, all the power & wealth concentrated in the hands of the very few, those in power. In fact Marx himself didn't view feudalism as an opposite of communism, but the first step towards Communism.
If you are actually interested in learning about this, a good place to start is a book called Libertarianism- A Primer. It's a very purist look at the philosphy, but in my opinion, that is a good place to begin.
It's very disappointing to me that an American, who apparently has a decent level of education, doesn't know this already. This is the founding philosophy of this country, & what has made the US different from every other in history.
Dennis,
ReplyDeleteFirst, you are over stating the nature of feudalism - it has no need to be complex - if you'd rather, we can call it Monarchy, but perhaps oligarchy is more apt.
Second, I made no strawman - I said if Marxism/communism is what the right (not I) is calling progressivism - meaning "from each/to each", then let's be honest about what the other extreme represents, no more, no less.
Third, while that may be the state objective of many on the right, and I have no doubt many on the right believe it, it has not been how it has come out in practice.
Moreover, the basic premise that you believe in private property rights seems contradicted by the cavallier way in which conservativsim passively allows our companies to violate those same rights overseas, but worse, that there is a profound inability to see the long-term effects of unchallenged trading of jobs which pay consumers on shore, for jobs which pay peanuts offshore. The net price doesn't fall, but the profits wind up in the hands of only a few. It's the recreation of the surf class, whether you recognize it or not.
Lastly, I hardly need an education in liberties - but I might suggest you may need to read Jefferson or Adams more closely. While Andrew Jackson perhaps would agree with your philosophy of caveat emptor economics - and "those with the most wins" approach - the reality of the past 30 years has been the application of power, by the powerful, upon the less powerful. Individual rights to pursue a decent life, to earn a decent day's pay for a decent day's work, have eroded to the point of nearly evaporating, and our founding fathers, not Jackson, well undestood the danger of a too powerful actor on the national stage. In thought, word, and deed, they mapped out a nation where the powerful were restrained by the Constitution from abusing the less powerful. THAT was their intent. Liberty also includes the right to be free from oppression borne of the ability to manipulate economics, not just that done at the end of a gun - that was the point of the Boston Tea Party my friend.
Consequently, if you are dissappointed, don't be, I'm a fair student of the Constitution, not the best, but by no means the worse, and your points weren't about it anyway, they were your intepretations of the liberties you choose to cherish. Finally, I didn't call it big "C" Communism, or didn't mean to if I did anywhere, but rather, little 'c' commmunism. While the Soviet Communist Dictatorship certainly did result in power in the hands of a few, that, to me, is the reflection of totalitarianism, not Communism itself - Naziism resulted in the exact same thing.
The point in the end is this, if you believe in unbridled capitalism, you only need to look as far as Mexico to see the future. 12 families run that country. They have open elections, where the highest vote getter IS the winner - yet, they are hardly free. They have little competition, they have a symbiosys between government and business, and no one gets anything much without one of the 12 families being paid off.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBTW Dennis - I left this out.
ReplyDeleteLittle 'c' communism, the ideal, is what folks on the right were referring to when they complain about 'spread the wealth', not big C Communism. They were talking about the ideal of spreading assets evenly, and arguing against it as a poor policy, poor incentivizer. If you are familiar with Mazlowe you'll know that in fact, pay is seen as a hygeine factor, not an incentivizer, but regardless, I don't argue for littel c- communism, NOR big C communism, but merely, finding something between unbridled capitalism, and socialism. The ability for the rich to dominate a society is hardly a new concept. I call it economic aristocracies - the transfer of wealth from generation to generation - with ever greater concentration in the hands of a few - but call it feudalims, or oligarchy, or whatever you like, it IS what conservatism supports. It has a blind faith in the basic nature of people with money to want to share it. That's no less foolish than expecting those with higher ability to want to share their skills for the same pay as those with less, i.e. communism.
This isn't a Consittutional lesson, but it IS a civics lesson. I appreciate your comments just the same.
From your original post:
ReplyDelete"What is the opposite of communism? Meaning, what is the opposite of perfectly even pay and distribution of wealth?
The line of the right today is that any discussion of taxing the rich is communism/socialism, my reply is, what is the opposite, what is it that you desire?
So, in contrast to communism, the right would promote feudalism, the excessive concentration of wealth into the hands of only a very very small few."
That is exactly what a straw man argument looks like.
I leaving for work now, so I can't write much. However, if you are interested in an intelligent conversation on the subject, I'll be back. just let me know.
I concur THAT is a strawman, but it's not of my creation. Palin/McCain have used that argument, several times, over the past 2 weeks. I didn't create it - and it's wrong
ReplyDeleteI'm more than interested, I'm happy to have such a discussion. Feel free to write back.
Sorry, in re-reading your reply.
ReplyDeleteYes it's my postulation that funneling funds to only the rich is a form of feudalism, it's my argument - but I don't make you assume that as true - which would be a strawman - I'm asking you what YOU would call it? I call it feudalism, what do you call it?
There is little question it's happening, so what is it? Moreover, if communism is the supposed goal/end result of progressive tax structures - then I'm asking you, have you recognized the opposite? Further, IS there an opposite? If so, what is it? I'm saying it's fuedalism, but that's NOT a strawman, I didn't merely claim it, and then argue from it - I'm claiming it's the reality and invite you to disagree.
I stated that feudalism as complex, largely because it is more complex than anyone can describe in a short paragraph in a blog comment. The actual complexities of feudalism are that it came in many forms, including monarchy & oligarchies, aristocracies & so forth. My point on feudalism is simply that it holds no similarities to Classical Liberalism, which as I stated, is the modern term for what is supported by the American Right. Therefore, I made a brief general description of the feudal system & declared it as an anathema to the Classical Liberal (aka American Conservative).
ReplyDeleteI was choosing not to get bogged down in a tedious conversation of the Feudal system, which is no longer the point of the conversation. Similarly, I am not going to get bogged down with a discussion on straw man arguments. In my opinion, what you presented was a classic text book straw man argument; you clearly have a different opinion, but that is also not the subject of the conversation.
Now on to the subject at hand…
The right to life, liberty & property is how John Locke put it, & Jefferson paraphrased Locke in the Declaration of Independence “life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.” Why did he drop ‘property’? Because Locke himself said that property rights are the essential component of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Without the right to property, you cannot have a right to life, as your body, & its life within, is your property. You cannot have a right to liberty if you have no property right to your body or its life. Finally without life & liberty, you cannot freely pursue happiness.
The Boston Tea Party was one of many tax revolts. It was not a leftist anti-corporate protest of “Big-Tea”, or a radical “Fair-Trade” group protesting the labor policies of the British in India. The Colonists were fighting against what they saw as an unfair tax from what was their centralized government, which had no problem taking their money, but refused to give them equal representation in the British Parliament. “No Taxation, Without Representation” was their cry. This idea was the impetus of the revolution & part of the philosophy that lead to the Constitution.
Our founding fathers understood correctly that the “too powerful actor on the national stage”, as you put it, was government. Not private industries, or business, or wealthy individuals, but government. This is the point of the US Constitution. The body of the Constitution, & the philosophy that formed it, limits the power of the federal government it was creating. It declares exactly what the Feds can do & how it can do it. It was intended to be the leash on the government. The Bill of Rights is also nothing more than limits on the federal government, but approaches it from the angle of what it cannot do to the citizens, and the 10th amendment says other limits not listed in the above 9 amendments exist, & the federal government needs to leave those to the states.
In other words, while the Jacksonian era may have been the infancy of the decline of original intent, The FDR administration was the absolute obliteration of original intent, and the rise of what the founding fathers feared most, a large, powerful overreaching federal government.
So, what is a right? Well, rights are not granted by governments or other men (or women) They are natural & come from “The Creator,” who or whatever one believes that to be. Ayn Rand was an atheist, & she declared rights are a part of natural law. Basically, if an action does not interfere with the property rights of another, you have a right to do it. It’s like the old adage of ‘you have the right to swing your fist all you want… until it meets my face’, which then violates my right to not get punched.
So, what happens when someone punches me in the face? Protecting the true rights of citizens is the legitimate function of a just government. Government can either protect individual rights or limit individual rights, and it cannot grant rights. The government cannot grant rights, because true natural rights already exist, therefore, any “rights” further granted by government is either a charade or actually an infringement of someone else’s natural right. A just government protects natural rights of all citizens, a tyrannical government infringes upon natural rights of some citizens, usually to increase its own power.
To my knowledge, you will not find any Founding Father, let alone Adams & Jefferson, who says that the government should impede or limit any private enterprise. If you have an example, I’d definitely like to see it, but I would be absolutely surprised. What the Founding Fathers intended to be the regulator of private enterprise is the free-market, & it does self-regulate. Ironically, it even regulates a market that is not free, because the free market is the natural state of things, & you cannot defy natural law.
There is more of course, including answers to your other charges, but it’s taken me several days to put this together, so I’ll leave it at this for now.
If you have a true interest in discovering what the other side believes then that book
Libertarianism- A Primer is a great place to start & also has an extensive further reading list that will take you on a Who’s Who in the Enlightenment Era tour.
Cheers for now.
Dennis J wrote:
ReplyDelete"I stated that feudalism as complex, largely because it is more complex than anyone can describe in a short paragraph in a blog comment. The actual complexities of feudalism are that it came in many forms, including monarchy & oligarchies, aristocracies & so forth. My point on feudalism is simply that it holds no similarities to Classical Liberalism, which as I stated, is the modern term for what is supported by the American Right. Therefore, I made a brief general description of the feudal system & declared it as an anathema to the Classical Liberal (aka American Conservative).
I was choosing not to get bogged down in a tedious conversation of the Feudal system, which is no longer the point of the conversation. "
I replied:
Understood - however, I wasn't discussing Feudal systems - I was discussing the concept of feudalism - the idea of a small group of people controlling and benefiting from the labor of many, and the intentional or unintentional movement of funds upward. It was, I was, making the point that feudalism is the opposite of socialism, both as an economic construct, and as a social construct. I think that point is nearly irrefutable - clearly, as Europe moved away from Monarchy/Aristocratic methods of social and economic structures, one of the end-points has become socialism, another communism. Discussion of 'Classic Liberalism' is your postulate - and you've provided reference, but your reference isn't compelling to me as fact - it is opinion of what the American Right choses to define itself as. I see that as an unproven strawman - not that feudalism is or is not an opposite position from aristocracy.
Dennis J wrote:"Similarly, I am not going to get bogged down with a discussion on straw man arguments. In my opinion, what you presented was a classic text book straw man argument; you clearly have a different opinion, but that is also not the subject of the conversation."
That's your opinion, but the definition of a strawman is an argument, which is unproven - then used to either justify a pro or con position. I didn't argue FOR feudalism, nor did I argue against it. I argued that it is the opposite of socialism, and challenged the right to define ANYTHING as an opposite whether it's called feudalism or Zorastrianism, I don't care - but take a position, does an opposite exist?
Dennis J wrote: "Now on to the subject at hand…"
I replied:
Oh, I think we were on a subject - but I'm happy to discuss further...
"The right to life, liberty & property is how John Locke put it, & Jefferson paraphrased Locke in the Declaration of Independence “life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.” Why did he drop ‘property’? Because Locke himself said that property rights are the essential component of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Without the right to property, you cannot have a right to life, as your body, & its life within, is your property. You cannot have a right to liberty if you have no property right to your body or its life. Finally without life & liberty, you cannot freely pursue happiness."
That's an opionion - regarding your body being property - and, btw, that's a strawman. - regardless, I don't disagree in principle - in that you should have dominion over your own body. I could launch into a tirade about the denial of dominion by the American Right as it relates to abortion - but that's a non-sequitor here. James, you've built a strawman presumption which I'll leave unchallenged, for now. It is not necessarily the case that liberty equates to happiness, though it is difficult to be happy without liberty - however, clearly, if you aren't alive, you don't have much in the way of cares about either liberty or happiness :).
Dennis J continues:"The Boston Tea Party was one of many tax revolts. It was not a leftist anti-corporate protest of “Big-Tea”, or a radical “Fair-Trade” group protesting the labor policies of the British in India. The Colonists were fighting against what they saw as an unfair tax from what was their centralized government, which had no problem taking their money, but refused to give them equal representation in the British Parliament. “No Taxation, Without Representation” was their cry. This idea was the impetus of the revolution & part of the philosophy that lead to the Constitution."
At a higher philosophical level, it was also an argument against the abuse of power, and the lack of representation. Taxation was merely the vehicle of abuse, but it's hardly the case this was either the only abuse, or the most aggregious. Bills of Attainder were roundly hated by the Colonists - and as such were enshrined in the Constitution. I think constraining the discussion to simply an 'anti-tax' view is overly simplifying the discussion. There were a host of greivances, taxation was neither the first, nor the least, among them. The colonists felt they had no voice. I know of few people who make claims of it as anything other than this, so I'm not sure where the 'leftist anti-corporate...' argument comes from, but it's an irrelevance in my opinion.
Dennis J:"Our founding fathers understood correctly that the “too powerful actor on the national stage”, as you put it, was government".
Based on what do you make this assertion? - they certainly felt that power in general was corrupting - I don't think such a limit is a valid conclusion of their sensibilities, further, clearly their intent WAS to protect the private citizen from abuse of power - if they didn't think of it, it's not supportable to say they therefore wouldn't feel that way.
Dennis J wrote: "Not private industries, or business, or wealthy individuals, but government. This is the point of the US Constitution. "
Again, such an opinion is pure conjecture. The Constitution DOES infact address the Government, but the limit of that is based on the known abusive actor of the day - the Government. I think, personally, you might want to consider whether they in fact ALSO were speaking to the power of the church when they enshrined the proscription against establishing a state religion. In fact, reading from the period indicates fear of a dominant Puritan church chasing out of power the southern Baptist community. This was, in many people's opinion, the reason for the establishment clause.
"The body of the Constitution, & the philosophy that formed it, limits the power of the federal government it was creating. It declares exactly what the Feds can do & how it can do it. "
I reply: It ALSO defines that the rights not enshrined should not be assumed to assumed to not exist (9th amendment). Finally, the 9th amendment identifies the fundamental concept that the Constitution is a living document, it was intended to be adapted. In fact, Jefferson points out precisely this fact.
"It was intended to be the leash on the government. The Bill of Rights is also nothing more than limits on the federal government, but approaches it from the angle of what it cannot do to the citizens, and the 10th amendment says other limits not listed in the above 9 amendments exist, & the federal government needs to leave those to the states. "
Well, after the Civil War, the idea that the Constitution bore implied rights upon the states, or rather, that certain amendments were 'incorporated' upon the states, was widely held to have been one of the fundamental outcomes of the Civil War - further, that the 14th implied the 'incorporation' of the 5th, and the 6th through the 5th, upon the states.
"In other words, while the Jacksonian era may have been the infancy of the decline of original intent, The FDR administration was the absolute obliteration of original intent, and the rise of what the founding fathers feared most, a large, powerful overreaching federal government."
I disagree, and your comments do not support this other than in the broadest strokes. Clearly, every major industrial power developed a large 'Welfare State' following the industrial revolution. But the ascendance of the 'large powerful, overreaching federal state' was an outcome of the Civil War first and foremost, and was a reaction to the Depression and the failure of the Gilded Age, in Roosevelt's New Deal - secondarily. One (the New Deal) could not have occured without the application of federal power during the Civil War establishing a federalized democratic state.
"So, what is a right? Well, rights are not granted by governments or other men (or women) They are natural & come from “The Creator,” who or whatever one believes that to be. Ayn Rand was an atheist, & she declared rights are a part of natural law. Basically, if an action does not interfere with the property rights of another, you have a right to do it. It’s like the old adage of ‘you have the right to swing your fist all you want… until it meets my face’, which then violates my right to not get punched."
I reply: Agreed - rights end at your feet, or mine I suppose. Others might argue the idea of 'a Creator' so I try to leave any discussion of "Providence" out of such ideas.
"So, what happens when someone punches me in the face? Protecting the true rights of citizens is the legitimate function of a just government."
I reply: Agreed, but certainly not the sum total. Since the formation of the earliest Governments, another, and equally important function, has been to help support and guide the good conduct of commerce. As well, as we ahve enshrined in our own Constitution, it is to promote the 'general welfare.' A term we could argue about the meaning of, but one which clearly indicates an intent to protect the general society against threats, military or otherwise.
"Government can either protect individual rights or limit individual rights, and it cannot grant rights. The government cannot grant rights, because true natural rights already exist,"
I reply: Well - that's rather idealic - but I won't argue against it directly as it's not important precisely whether we acknowledge the origin, but rather whether a government has the responsibility to protect, and therfore guarantee those rights. By gauranteeing, that's pretty close to the same thing as 'granting' for without the gaurantee, the granting is moot except in the sense that the lack thereof leads to unhappiness.
James continues, "therefore, any “rights” further granted by government is either a charade or actually an infringement of someone else’s natural right. A just government protects natural rights of all citizens, a tyrannical government infringes upon natural rights of some citizens, usually to increase its own power. "
I reply: This creates a strawman - namely, that Government is itself an organism. It isn't, it is the structure by which certain persons assume and exert power. THEY are the ones who increase their power through the perversion of a just government. Creating a villian out of government is missing the mark, and attacking a symptom, rather than a cause. By granting the right to be governed to the government, the risk exists that those so granted power, will abuse it. It is the responsibility of the citizen to retract that power when necessary (to paraphrase John Locke).
"To my knowledge, you will not find any Founding Father, let alone Adams & Jefferson, who says that the government should impede or limit any private enterprise."
I reply: I doubt I'd actually have to show you such a statement. Any private enterprise which imperils the general welfare is by it's very nature and definition unsupportable. Further, it imperils private citizens rights to happiness by constraining their ability to work for a living wage if that private enterprise, through colusion, price-fixing, and monopoly, can restrict the movement of workers economically. I doubt you'd find any founding father who would support the kinds of vertical monopolistic controls exerted in our modern society by MNC's. The point is, I can find reasonable argument for intent against abusive tactics by private enterprise, you'd be hard pressed to find reasonable arguments allowing it.
" If you have an example, I’d definitely like to see it, but I would be absolutely surprised. What the Founding Fathers intended to be the regulator of private enterprise is the free-market, & it does self-regulate. Ironically, it even regulates a market that is not free, because the free market is the natural state of things, & you cannot defy natural law. "
I reply: There's the rub - first, I doubt they had much vision about free enterprise except in the most unsophisticated senses as it operates today. Second, we don't have a 'free market', we have capitalism that trends to monopoly. We also have the exposure of the 'free market' to near slave wages. If you feel slavery was not on the minds of both our founding fathers and certainly of our forefathers after the Civil War in terms of it's impact on labor, I suggest you reconsider your feeling. It most certainly was, and was why we created/developed land grant universities following the Civil War. Fourth, clearly they intended that we adapt the Constitution to the times. However, the Constitution doesn't have to be the limiting or overriding point of focus here. The Constitution IN NO WAY limits the people OR the government from passing laws to either protect the general welfare OR regulate the good conduct of commerce.
Lastly, saying the 'free market' is natural law, says who? I don't argue against the free market - but a controlled, abused market is more the natural state of things. People tend to manipulate the market - that's what they do by nature - not because they're bad people, but because they want security. This was the reason communism failed, among other things.
"There is more of course, including answers to your other charges, but it’s taken me several days to put this together, so I’ll leave it at this for now."
I reply: There is little charge in my comment -- I asked you (or a conservative) to define what the upward movement of power and wealth should be charactarized as. You have not yet done so, I look forward to your reply where you do.
"If you have a true interest in discovering what the other side believes then that book
Libertarianism- A Primer is a great place to start & also has an extensive further reading list that will take you on a Who’s Who in the Enlightenment Era tour.
Cheers for now. "
James - I appreciate your reply, but a this reply I hope points out, I'm reasonably literate in history, and the development of governmental philosophy, both during the time of the writing of the Constitution, and generally, what the major ideas have been since.
Thanks for writing - cheers to you as well.
Penigma
ReplyDeleteYou fancy yourself reasonably literate in government history, but you refuse the teachings of someone with superior knowledge. Dennis, at great personal expenditure of time, wrote an accurate and concise summary of the constitutional role of the federal government as it relates personal liberty / economic freedom. He did this in a good faith effort to help you better understand the issues. You could learn something from him. Rather than a knee-jerk refutation of everything he says, why don't you read up on it? Take his advice and read the book he's suggesting. You may not agree with the book, you may still not agree with everything Dennis says; but at least you'll be in a better position to argue with him.
But don't try to claim that the Constitution was intended to operate as a limit on private industry. That's just retarded.
Incidentally, I don't mean that in a snarky way; I mean that in a "come on, really?" way. I've seen you write some very insighful posts ("the theft of thought", for example), but your understanding of constitutional law is way off.
ReplyDeleteAndy,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your second post, I don't much care for the conduct/tone of the first.
First of all, very little I said denied what Dennis said. Frankly, I pointed out that Dennis' statements were, imho, short of the full mark, and short of the full understanding some folks have of the founding father's intent.
You claimed I don't understand Constitutonal theory as pertaining exlusively to government. Yet there is enough evidence that in fact the Constitution has, at it's core, a fundamental intent to put the brakes on power, not just on government. For example, on the Church. Further, that the frame of mind of the founding fathers is deeper than just simply concerns for Mother England's yoke - but rather upon the individual states to say 'no' to the intrusions of the Federal, however, to assume that such statements are merely limited to the concept of the state (or individual) to the federal authority, is to my mind, narrow. Certainly Jefferson spoke about this in his writings of the early 1800's when he talked about the 'separation of church and state' as he clearly saw the corrupting ability of the church upon governmental power. He wasn't concerned about government itself, but rather it's misuuse, and by it, the ability of POWER to be misued.
I was respectful in my reply to James, as James was to me, and frankly, while James may have taken some days to reply, I certainly put considerable thought into my reply as well - so please don't be dismissive of my effort - or assume for a moment I was dismissive of his.
As to expertise, to be candid, James showed some inexpert views as it relates to expansion of federal power when he ascribed it to Roosevelt (Franklin) - the greatest expansion resulted from the Civil War - it fundamentally redefined the applicability of the Constitution upon the states - FDR's conduct was to create the Welfare State. Without doubt such a state would, standing alone, be an anethma to the founding fathers, but my contention, and I think any read of Adams of Jefferson supports this, is that the times make the need - the world had matured far beyond the vision of George Washington or Alexander Hamilton or James Madison - ALL substantial proponents of democracy and in the case of the latter two, a strong federal state. But all of those 5 (Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, and Hamilton) recognized the living nature of the document itself - and further, that beyond the ability to amend it, was the idea that it SHOULD be amended to meet the times, meaning the government SHOULD adapt to meet the times.
While I respect James' effort - I don't particularly appreciate the implication by you that I should 'listen to my betters'. James seems like a nice fellow, but I argued him on point, and I believe, pointed out where his position was not fully complete. In short, that assuming the Constitution merely, in intent, was designed to put a check on government only, and not to advocate for action designed to protect the general welfare, or to grow as time demanded, was more his 'view' than fact, as I believe your comments are also. You claimed my stance was incorrect, but provided no refuting points at all.
However, all of this wind/all of these words are a far cry from the real point. Unrestrained capitalism is no less flawed than pure communism, it leads to abusive tactics by corporate leaders, to monopoly, to short-sighted profiteering, and to highly volatile environments rife with opportunity for collapse. It also leads to a massive under class, poor infrastructure and generally an ill-educated labor force. My point to him, and my question to you is this - what do you call the opposite of socialism? It IS what has been pursued, though I'm sure not purposefully, over the past 30 years in this country. If a narrow interpretation of the Constitution supports your 'caveat emptor' world (and I don't believe it does), then what check against the US becoming Mexico exists? It is clear that the conservative ethic on the economy is to allow the powerful to do what they will, as competition with other powerful entities will hold them in check over time. I suggest that exactly the OPPOSITE occurs, they collude, the carve up the avenues of power, in short, they create economic feudatories. It is precisely the state in Mexico and El Salvador.
I also say this, our Constitution in fact says NOTHING about which form of economy we should use. If states choose to institute socialism, so long as the will of the people supports it, then it is within their right. If interstate commerce can be better regulated by a strong federal interaction, again, nothing in the constitution prevents it. The only stance against it at all are again words in the preamble, the ideas of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are no less ephemeral or general then 'supporting the general welfare.' Consequently, it is not reasonable or logical to categorically conclude that the Constitution supports ANY economic model that doesn't abridge general abilities to work how and where you like.
Finally Andy, I don't think my comments for a moment showed me as naive', if you feel that way, fine, but I find it hard to fathom since my comments answered James point for point - and as yet, have not had any factual argument presented to counter them. When that occurs, if it presents concepts with which I find any measure of logic, I'll either accept them, or if they are lacking, counter them. That's the nature of exchange, which both you and James are welcome to engage in, but the hyperbole needs to be left out.
I will however ask 'thoughts of eternity' who is a criminal law defense attorney and reasonably practiced in constitutional theory, to comment - I suspect he'll find that theory likely comes down somewhere in the middle, as some of what I argue is an extension of ideas, rather than documented ideas, of our forefathers.
Thank you for writing - Pen
After reading the comments back and forth here, and having been requested to comment, I will do so. I'm not going to address the straw man arguments (pro or con), as they really aren't germane to the discussion upon which I'm being asked to comment.
ReplyDeleteThe area that I will address is Constitutional Law, and the Constitution's impact on government control over the economy.
The US Constitution, as it was originally ratified by the several states, contains a series of powers which it grants to the federal government. These include broad powers to regulate interstate commerce. Article I, Section 8 gives the US Congress, and therefore by implication, the federal government, the right to regulate commerce between the US and foreign powers, and between the states, and with Indian nations. It does not specifically say which types or which aspects of commerce that the government may regulate, nor does it discuss how the government may regulate commerce. There are a series of cases in which the Supreme Court, over the past 200 years or so, has allowed congress to increasingly use the regulation of interstate commerce clause to pass various forms of governmental regulation.
I've read the arguments that the founders intended this or that economic theory. We can't know exactly what the founders intended, since the field of economics wasn't widely recognized until the mid to late 1800's, long after the founders were dead. However, by virtue of the fact that the founders deliberately wrote into the US Constitution the ability of Congress to regulate commerce, I can't believe that the founders felt that the government should take a completely hands-off approach. In short, I find that there is sufficient historical and case law support for the fact that the Constitution does in fact allow the government to regulate commerce.
In another statement, Penigma has stated that states are free to embark on socialism if they want. That's true to some extent, but false in others. To the extent that an individual state can take over private industry, i.e. go into business and sell and buy from its citizens, and/or provide services that are often though of as "private business", the Constitution is silent. I suspect that if there were a test case, that the SCOTUS would probably side with the state, as there is no prohibition of it. However, the Constitution does guarantee to all states a republican form of government. (Note, a form of government, NOT a republican party). This means a representative democracy.
There are those who believe that the US Constitition is static... that it should be literally interpreted, and that the words should be given the meaning at the time it was written. The problem with this is that the English language is a very dynamic tongue. Words often change in meaning from decade to decade, or over centuries. Therefore, using the common meaning of the constitution as directly written is problematic in some cases. However, a reading of the Constitution can usually get the gist of the document, and the concepts that it lays down as the law of the land.
I reject, however, that the Constitution was intended to be a static document. The founders wrote into the constitution the process of amendment, so that it could be changed from time to time, as circumstances arose. There have been a number of amendments over the years.
One of the most interesting amendments was Amendment XIV, passed just after the Civil War.
Amendment XIII, XIV and XV were passed directly because of the Civil War. XIII abolishes slavery. XIV gives equal protection and the right not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. XV states that rights can't be denied on account of race.
Amendment XIV has been the bane of many who would deprive Americans of their rights, especially when states try to do so.
By determining that individual rights such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the right to counsel, the right against self incrimination, etc are fundamental rights subject to due process, and therefore apply to the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment. For sake of space, I won't list the long line of supreme court cases here, (from both conservative and liberal courts).
I am not going to get involved in the argument over capitalism vs socialism. I will say that I agree with Penigma that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about which form of economic model the US should follow. In the absence of the Constitution forbidding it, in theory, Congress could do pretty much as is chooses in that regard under its authority to regulate commerce.
You are free to send me questions via email if you wish.
Editing my post a bit: When I stated that the Constitution guarantees to all states a republican form of government, I mean further that while it is very possible in a representative democracy to have a socialism as an economic model, there really isn't such a thing as a socialist government. The governments that one calls socialist is often authoritarian, totalitarian, etc.. but socialist isn't truly a definition of a type of government. I might note that in theory, the constitution of the USSR granted more freedoms to the people of the soviety union than does the US Constitution, but since it was largely ignored by the authoritarian/totalitarian leaders in power, it was a moot point.
ReplyDeleteSocialism generally refers to a melding of governmental and business functions. However, socialism isn't a government system in itself.