Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2669 views
What is a corporation but an assembly of people?
An oligarchy where a few rule the many.
I...don't know how to respond to this. It makes no sense to me.
What are the individual states but a government that is closer to the people than the Federal government?
True, but why should any government have inherent rights? Governments exist to serve the people.
Yes, they do. In the US, we're supposed to honor the rule of law. Our foundation for that is the US Consitution. It grants certain powers to the Federal Government and reserves much to the States and the people. Over time, we've often ignored that fact when it was inconvenient.
So the correct question is really, why do should the Federal Government exercise powers for which it does not have Constitutional authority? Why do you question "inherent rights" for State governments but not the Federal Government?
How does taking away people's freedom to act when they (privately!) decide to act collectively enhance people's freedom to act?
It doesn't. I never said that it did. (Straw man?) I feel this is a good argument in support of unions, for example.
It's not a straw man AFAICT. But it seems to describe your view on corporations.
How does substituting a less responsive and more difficult to change form of government enhance people's chance at liberty?
Again, I never said this. I believe all levels of government should be made more responsive and easier to change. Allowing people to pick their own Senator, for example...
Well, I would say that while you say that, by arguing for centralizing power at the Federal Government, you're actually doing the opposite. Obviously we disagree on this, but that's my point.
Well, I'm complaining about tax breaks and rising debt and bailouts... Not too familiar with the Progressive movement of 1898 so I won't comment on that.
The Progressive movement of 1898 didn't die out. It grew in the first half of the 20th century, and became essentially the American version of European fascism (yes, they were big admirers of Mussolini). In many senses it was watered down. But in general, it was about exerting control from the top
Things like TARP were quite bipartisan. Though I seem to recall it was a few democrats who decried it when TARP passed the second time around...
Yes, there were a few on each side who had misgivings about it. It was a fairly panicked reaction. Of course, the implementation was not at all like how it was sold.
So, your response seems to say that a little (OK, maybe a bit more than just a little) is bad, but a lot is good.
What I really mean is that the Democrats represent something else to me, beyond the money cost of (some of) their policies (some of which were quite bipartisan, mind you).
I fully agree. I guess we just disagree on the cost/benefit of those other things. 
Matt
