Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2720 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.
Now we're getting somewhere. 
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.
Agreed.
Over time, we've often ignored that fact when it was inconvenient.
It's often been ignored throughout history. This is not new.
So the correct question is really, why do should the Federal Government exercise powers for which it does not have Constitutional authority?
I think both questions are important to ask.
Why do you question "inherent rights" for State governments but not the Federal Government?
I'd question both.
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.
You understood this point as well as you did my point on oligarchies.
Corporations are either owned by a small group of people (the controlling shareholders) or, in cases where no single interest holds a controlling majority, the top level management (headed by the CEO) effectively controls the corporation.
(Exceptions to the rule, such as cooperatives or collectives, and mom-and-pop shops, do exist, but I'm referring to the Corporation here. Also, in management-led corporations, the shareholders can act together and vote in a new Board of Directors with the mandate to replace the management - like a democracy - but the employees can't.)
Corporations do not literally rule over their employees in the way that absolute monarchies rule over their subjects. However, they have enormous power to dictate the lives of their employees. If labor was completely fungible, this would not be the case - but it isn't.
Of course, we have organized labor to serve as balance against that. And corporations are subject to the checks of regulatory agencies of various levels of the government - from the local to the international level.
Then again, I'd like to live in a world where everyone could be absolute monarch of their own soverign state. Sealand is taken, but maybe I can have Moonland?
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.
I have not argued for centralization of power. Simply, (in addition to being suspicious of attempts to grant the Federal government more power) one should be suspicious of attempts to grant state and local governments more power.
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
I see similiarties here with the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. In both cases, an attempt to grant more control to the top was made.
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.
Agreed. At first it was suppose to be a flat-out bailout, give money to the companies so they'd stay afloat. Later on, it became something that had to be paid back (so the money would return to the federal government, reducing the burden on future taxpayers). I won't say that I like TARP, but TARP is in the black.
And it was certainly done in panic - as the markets went down after the first attempt to pass TARP failed.
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. 
Yup.
