DeElitification Is What We Need In This Country

OffHeGoes29

Kann wrote:

80% of the world population is really hoping so.

Do you have a better solution?

OffHeGoes29

Still looking for an answer...any one? Whats better than our current form of Government?

DriftingByTheStorm

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Still looking for an answer...any one? Whats better than our current form of Government?

The Constitutional Republic we are supposed to have?

OffHeGoes29

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The Constitutional Republic we are supposed to have?

We do have a Constitutional Republic, where specifically did we go astray. What would you do to change it?

(I know I'm asking for a it)

DriftingByTheStorm

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

We do have a Constitutional Republic, where specifically did we go astray. What would you do to change it?

(I know I'm asking for a it)

I'll take "Following The Constitution" for $200, Alex.

Generally, a reversion of power back from the federal government and again to the states would be a start.

Returning the constitutionally granted authority of the federal government to set the value of coin and not to some "quazi-federal" institution, that is nothing more than a private shell corp. would be another big step.

Further clarifying those rights and powers with an amendment would probably be a good idea, too.
Getting rid of "legal tender" laws (unless some states want to make gold and silver legal tender, like the law says), and allowing free market money as the public so desires could help.

Clearing up the much perverted context of the 16th amendment would do some good.

And some sort of new found respect for the intention of preventing standing armies might do some good too.

Oh, and i can think of at least a half dozen federal agencies with 3 letter acronyms that we could do without.

And then there is education, and entitlements.

Is this the part where someone throws out the word "fundamentalist" and makes some snappy comment directed towards me saying something about slavery (respecting states rights) ?

:cool:

catch22

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Eh.
I think you've got the problem down correctly, but i would disagree with your solution, as being a bit too restrictive of rights.

I have personally iterated the concept of the corporate form being a privilege and not a right MANY times on this board, and i DO think that it (along with the corrupt funneling of below market rate money from the Fed to the elitist institutions, and the implicit guarantees that ensure their reign) is at the heart of the problem.

What i would prefer to see instead is a removal of the PERSONAL income tax, which according to the original proposition by Taft was never the intent of the 16th Amendment.

Read his letter to congress proposing an income tax, because he makes it quite clear the dangers of the corporate form.



He also makes it clear that it was a TAX ON PRIVELAGE.


Reverting the tax law to this original intent would rectify the imbalance in the market, by shifting the burden back on to the CORPORATE form to prove its own utility.

If something can truly be done more efficiently in the corporate form then it WILL still be done. But instead, if a business is incorporated solely to enjoy unjust benefit that befall ONLY the corporation, it will fade away as sole proprietorships (and i would argue that S Corps should ALSO be exempt from tax) take over a job that they are more advantageously able to complete, given that they would now be free from taxation and doing so under the non corporate form (or as a small S corp) would simply be more profitable.

This, along with abolishing the Fed would right a great many imbalances in the market and shift economics back in to the favor of small business and the american public, and strip the large corporations of many of thier unfair advantages.

And we wouldn't have to restrict freedoms by putting caps on market functions like pay.

??? I have to go to a bachelor party and shove some bills at some strippers.

i'm not sure i see how this addresses the problem of greed and wealth buying influence. abolishing the personal income tax is ok by me, but even if the corporation goes extinct how does that suddenly stop "elites" from continuing to use personal wealth to protect themselves? i feel that, just like the fed, you can phase out the form but you're still going to have super rich people buying favors and finding other ways to protect themselves. i prefer the idea of making corporations very attractive and profitable and then regulating them. i don't see it as a curb on personal freedom. you can choose not to be a corporation. and any restrictions are on the corporation, not the individuals. you're making for a profitable business venture, but also ensuring that that wealth is being distributed broadly instead of being so concentrated and also spurring the innovation that initially made this country so strong and has recently been waning.

i think i see what you are saying about making small businesses, sole proprietorships, and partnerships more competitive. what are the unfair advantages you ascribe to corporations? are you talking about shielding those who fund it from liability? ie. being able to create a company without having to be responsible for its actions and abuses in a financial sense?

enjoy the bachelor party. hopefully this will make sense whenever you get to it. i'm deliriously tired and not sure any of this is clear.

OffHeGoes29

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I'll take "Following The Constitution" for $200, Alex.

Generally, a reversion of power back from the federal government and again to the states would be a start.

Returning the constitutionally granted authority of the federal government to set the value of coin and not to some "quazi-federal" institution, that is nothing more than a private shell corp. would be another big step.

Further clarifying those rights and powers with an amendment would probably be a good idea, too.
Getting rid of "legal tender" laws (unless some states want to make gold and silver legal tender, like the law says), and allowing free market money as the public so desires could help.

Clearing up the much perverted context of the 16th amendment would do some good.

And some sort of new found respect for the intention of preventing standing armies might do some good too.

Oh, and i can think of at least a half dozen federal agencies with 3 letter acronyms that we could do without.

And then there is education, and entitlements.

Is this the part where someone throws out the word "fundamentalist" and makes some snappy comment directed towards me saying something about slavery (respecting states rights) ?

:cool:

Wow, I can't fault you for not doing your research.

I don't think our government is perfect, but its better than any other pre-existing government currently in power.

catch22

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I'll take "Following The Constitution" for $200, Alex.

Generally, a reversion of power back from the federal government and again to the states would be a start.

Returning the constitutionally granted authority of the federal government to set the value of coin and not to some "quazi-federal" institution, that is nothing more than a private shell corp. would be another big step.

Further clarifying those rights and powers with an amendment would probably be a good idea, too.
Getting rid of "legal tender" laws (unless some states want to make gold and silver legal tender, like the law says), and allowing free market money as the public so desires could help.

Clearing up the much perverted context of the 16th amendment would do some good.

And some sort of new found respect for the intention of preventing standing armies might do some good too.

Oh, and i can think of at least a half dozen federal agencies with 3 letter acronyms that we could do without.

And then there is education, and entitlements.

Is this the part where someone throws out the word "fundamentalist" and makes some snappy comment directed towards me saying something about slavery (respecting states rights) ?

:cool:

things have gotten out of hand, true. but some of this stuff is necessary. this country's size compared to when the constitution was written is staggering. there is simply no way for congress to handle the kind of oversight and legislation needed in a country this size with its myriad problems. some administrative quasi-executive/legislative agencies are needed. there are far too many, they encroach far too many areas, and they have been designed so patchwork that some serious revision is needed. but you cannot completely abandon federalism. the ease with which this country can draw on its different strengths from various areas and people has been a huge part of its strength. every state having completely different currency and customs would be an enormous setback. the government also has the ability to regulate interstate commerce. there is very little commerce anymore that is not interstate. we can't go back to an agrarian society. again, i'll grant that is has vastly exceeded its proper place and scope. but this country was designed to basically integrate the nation's economy and defense, while allowing local control of customs and lifestyles.

DriftingByTheStorm

catch22 wrote:

i'm not sure i see how this addresses the problem of greed and wealth buying influence. abolishing the personal income tax is ok by me, but even if the corporation goes extinct how does that suddenly stop "elites" from continuing to use personal wealth to protect themselves? i feel that, just like the fed, you can phase out the form but you're still going to have super rich people buying favors and finding other ways to protect themselves. i prefer the idea of making corporations very attractive and profitable and then regulating them. i don't see it as a curb on personal freedom. you can choose not to be a corporation. and any restrictions are on the corporation, not the individuals. you're making for a profitable business venture, but also ensuring that that wealth is being distributed broadly instead of being so concentrated and also spurring the innovation that initially made this country so strong and has recently been waning.

i think i see what you are saying about making small businesses, sole proprietorships, and partnerships more competitive. what are the unfair advantages you ascribe to corporations? are you talking about shielding those who fund it from liability? ie. being able to create a company without having to be responsible for its actions and abuses in a financial sense?

enjoy the bachelor party. hopefully this will make sense whenever you get to it. i'm deliriously tired and not sure any of this is clear.

Yeah.
I will actually concede agreement with your point on corporations, their privilege and regulation of those privileges.

What i would argue, on principal at least, would be for the retained rights of the people vis a vis the state to regulate and make those determinations. I'm not even sure, given the scope of the federal government current bounds-overstepping that it would even be bad precedent to grant federal government that right of regulation, but -- like i said -- on constitutional principle alone i would argue for state management of those regulations.

As for your second post about federalism and the necessity of central government management of issues our forefathers may never have foreseen, i'm sure we could come to reasonable compromise on that. I don't even think it would be in the purview of the PJ Message Board to get in to the muck that such debate entails ... suffice to say I would settle for ANY reversion of power back to the states.

of ALL the federal encroachments upon state and individual rights (outside of the massive scope of the currency problem) my biggest personal concern would be education. I just can not, knowing what i know about the powers behind federal control, allow the youth of generations to come to be corrupted by a school system which is emblematic of the interests of the elite themselves, and not the people whom that education in theory should serve.

Kann

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Still looking for an answer...any one? Whats better than our current form of Government?

Capitalism is not a form of government. Do not equate democracy and capitalism as you can have one without the other.
But anyways, since we won't be over capitalism anytime soon, some adjustments could be nice.

DriftingByTheStorm

Kann wrote:

Capitalism is not a form of government. Do not equate democracy and capitalism as you can have one without the other.
But anyways, since we won't be over capitalism anytime soon, some adjustments could be nice.

Unfortunately that is the lie they've been spreading in public school for some time now.

I remember being told time and time again throughout the years that we had a "capitalist form of government".

:rolleyes:

In fact, i didn't hear the words "constitutional" or even "democratic" REPUBLIC mentioned ONCE in ALL of my schooling, primary or otherwise. Allthough they did sometimes worsen the confusion by saying we had a "Democracy" or even a "Capitalist Democracy". YUCK!

:( :( :(