Reply With Quote
sure. they did not allow women nor blacks to vote but they believed in elected representation (as far as the house went).
Well, to be sure, this isn't our forefathers electoral process.
sure. they did not allow women nor blacks to vote but they believed in elected representation (as far as the house went).
More appropriately, until around 1850, they only allowed tax-paying property owners to vote.
And, prior to the 17th amendment, States still were able to choose the occupants of the Senate (the advise and consent side of the legislature).
Now, the Senate is a beauty contest and people with no investment in this country can vote the theft of my money to support their lifestyle.
I don't see how having Senators in tow to state political machines, as they were previously, necessarily improves matters, and the Amendment itself would seem to indicate there was a general urgency about changing that state of affairs.
/smoke-filled room
well since neither blacks nor women were property owners i guess it all works out the same.
but yes, the framers intentionally framed a republic so as to avoid the pitfalls of other "democracies" of the time. and even more so, your point about tax payers illustrates that the framers wanted to make sure that they could secure the permanent interests of the country, which were property rights. in other words, the government must guard the rights of persons generally, but must provide special and additional guarantees for the rights of one class of persons, property owners.
the framers were aristocrats and they often spoke in condescending tones in regards to the "people".
"When I mention the public, I mean to include only the rational part of it. The ignorant and vulgar are as unfit to judge of the modes [of government], as they are unable to manage [its] reins.." alexander hamilton
"The people who own the country ought to govern it." john jay
and the primary responsibility of the constiution according to madison was "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority..."
the founding fathers were more concerned about property than democracy.
1. Yoni sees no problem with the wealth in this country ac ulating in the hands of a few
2. Yoni advocates that only property owners be allowed to vote.
Very telling.
Total lasiez-faire capitalism does tend to lead to monopolies.According to theory and legend, yes.
Who's the utopian now, Yoni?
The state is boots deep in business, and the other way around. There's no free market. There hasn't been one for 100 years, if ever. There's always the context of legality and political power. Maybe you can bracket the state conceptually, but in reality you can't untangle it from everyday life.
I think we can all agree that monopolies are very inefficient outcomes.
I have yet to hear a free-market solution for monopolies.
Yoni, since you are the liberatarian champion here, can you tell me what the libertarian answer to monopolies is?
Just to be clear: I am not being snarky at all, I am genuinely curious to see if there is an answer, as I can't really think of one other than govermental regulation.
Yoni should try living in countries where his preferred policies have been implemented. Oligarchies are pretty depressing (unless you happen to be born to the oligarchs, of course -- then it's kick-ass!)(once you clear the hurdles of conscience).
He does make a very valid point or two though.
All economic systems are essentially methods of rationing goods and services. In communism/socialism that method is usually allotment, and/or the ability to be first in line, in free-market system that is accomplished by ability/willingness to pay.
If everybody were of equal wealth, how would you go about distributing goods/services?
How would you then reward risk, talent, or good ideas?
I think we need to be mindful of the consequences of completely unfettered capitalism, as well as the fact that it is a driver of innovation.
My guess at Yoni's solutions:
How to correct extreme wealth inequality - Revolution
How to combat monopolies - You don't. Alternatively, revolution.
Monopoly on what? Some aren't worth worrying about. Others are only able to exist because of government/congressional enabling/tinkering/fubaring.
No, I get that. I honestly think it depends on what is being monopolized.
I know you didn't ask me, and I don't really have an answer to that question, but I can offer this:
We could use existing Federal an rust laws to break up abusive trusts and combinations, and RTC-like resolution authority to break up ty banks.
Only necessary when extreme "wealth inequality" is combined with oppressive, fascist government control of its citizenry. When the wealthy start crying, "Let them eat cake!" and the government condones and enables that, yeah, revolution may be the only recourse.
I don't think we're there.
There are 350 million Americans. If we collectively think Bill Gates is too wealthy, we start buying another operating system. Same with General Motors.
Unfortunately, in the case of GM, the government has stepped in and propped up the wealthy.
Nobody is too big to fail in this country. And, nobody is too small to succeed. If only government would stay out of the way.
Again, depends on what's being monopolized.
The same way you do now? Are you telling me capitalism only works because of wealth inequality? Goods would still have value attached to them and just because everyone had equal wealth I don't see how any of that would change.
Not that anyone was advocating equal distribution of wealth. That was addressed very early on in this thread
What about when ideas are squashed by force or saved only by government intervention? Imagine surfing the web today if Sun Microsystems hadn't won court battles against Microsoft. No Java because Microsoft was successful in punishing a good idea they didn't start.How would you then reward risk, talent, or good ideas?
Thats just an example.
I agree that a system that completely distributes wealth evenly wouldn't reward those tenets but then I don't really believe our current system does a good job of doing that either.
Absolutely.I think we need to be mindful of the consequences of completely unfettered capitalism, as well as the fact that it is a driver of innovation.
Another point that I find rather ironic is that Yonivore simultaneously berates the voters for making poor decisions and champions a system that counts on the consumers to make good decisions. Who exactly does he believe consumers are if not the same people who are voting?
Uh, what?
Compartmentalization is a .Who exactly does he believe consumers are if not the same people who are voting?
It's like Church of the Sub-genius: the cash nexus completes one's reliable link to salvation.
Voting is nice but its benefits are seldom economically measurable in the short term, unlike shopping.
It was mostly to Yoni, it was a pretty general question open to anybody who wanted to put forth something.
As I said, I can't think of anything other than big bad government, and having the government interfere with business is a libertarian no-no.
I always make the case that any good free market system needs rules and referees.
The question is not whether, unless you ask a real extremist like Ron Paul, but how much.
Therein lies the rub.
So, the answer is... it depends?Yoni, since you are the liberatarian champion here, can you tell me what the libertarian answer to monopolies is?
You seem to imply that monopolies aren't necessarily the inevitable consequence of capitalism without rule.
I do get that goverment interference does occasionally lead to monopolies, but I would contend that monopolies are almost inevitable consequences of NOT interfering. Sooner or later some company somewhere, would get the upper hand, and become a monopoly.
A monopoloy in a fairly minor aspect of the economy could always be broken by a bigger bully, but when it is somethign like oil or other high entry cost businesses, then we would pretty much have to have some goverment regulations.
How about oil, since it was the big one that pretty much caused the original anti-trust laws?
Other than laws, how would we as a society combat that?
Another failure of liberatarian thinking for me:
Law enforcement.
Say you shrink the federal goverment, and push the functions of the FBI down to a state level.
How then would a state like Maine, or Wyoming, with a sparse popultion deal with a large drug cartel, or foreign/domestic mafia setting up shop, and buying a state government?
What is the libertarian, small government answer to organized crime?
Yet another thing that the founding fathers never had to contend with, and definitely never forsaw.
Another guess!
State militias, organized by volunteers.
That honestly had not occurred to me.Another guess!
State militias, organized by volunteers.
I don't see the average militia standing up to a drug cartel with a billion dollars to spend on thugs/guns/bribes.
Good try though.
To be fair, I'm sure many wouldn't imagine that America could win a war against what was the strongest nation in the world at the time.
As well, the militia wouldn't have to WIN the war... just make it costly enough for the drug sellers that it's not worth selling there.
Not sure about the feasibility, but theoretically it could work.
One of the biggest failings of libertarian thinking is lack of acknowledgement that multinational corporations are just as bad if not worse than government.
Also RG, I personally believe you're going beyond libertarian thinking straight into anarchist thinking. Libertarians doesn't necessarily believe in no government but extremely limited government.
Anarcho-capitalism has a lot of answers to the questions you pose but i don't believe them to be either feasible or effective.
There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)
Posting Permissions
