Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Publius

Regulars
  • Posts

    107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Publius

  1. Is it not the freedom of choice that this country was founded on? the freedom to choose what you said, the freedom to choose what, if any, religion to follow? Then why is it considered good to steal from those who could have given freely to the cause of others... This country, no matter what argument you bring up or define illogically, was built on the freedom from the arbitrary will of others.

    I am in no way challenging Objectivism with my argumentation. Rather, I am challenging the idea that Objectivism, or Objectivist principles, are somehow American principles. While they do overlap, they are not the same. The United States has always been about working for the collective good, while protecting individual liberty. You can't split off the former and keep only the latter. Taxation was not a controversial idea to the founding fathers, they all thought it essential to the continuity and efficacy of the government. If you choose to call it theft, so be it. But you would not be in the same intellectual company as the founding fathers of these here United States.

    This is why I feel it is a grave mistake for Objectivists to delude themselves into thinking that it is America where Objectivist philosophy will take root. Just because this country is the closest land on earth to the Objectivist ideal does not mean that it is close enough. Objectivist political philosophy is a radical departure from the principles this country was founded upon.

  2. You have not provided any quotes in which the Founding Fathers actually define what they mean by general welfare.

    I recently came across this good site for Jefferson quotes. Here is Jefferson talking specifically about the benefits of wealth redistribution:

    "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property rights have been so far extended as to violate natural rights. " --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

    And on welfare:

    "The poor who have neither property, friends, nor strength to labor, are boarded in the houses of good farmers, to whom a stipulated sum is annually paid. To those who are able to help themselves a little, or have friends from whom they derive some succor, inadequate however to their full maintenance, supplementary aids are given which enable them to live comfortably in their own houses, or in the houses of their friends. --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

    I'm imagining this is you after reading that.

    crazy_old_man.jpg

    But seriously, that site is a treasure trove of quotes from Jefferson on government.

  3. First I do not much care about his intensions. The consequences of his wrong doing are going to be the same regardless.

    Intentions do matter. I will be judged differently depending on whether I accidentally shoot you dead while cleaning my gun, or shoot you dead because I hate your cooking.

    Second, he understands and even fully acknowledged that it is the free market which is the source of wealth. He also due to this altruistic ethics believes in economic equality.

    He does not believe in economic equality. That would be communism. He and just about everyone in this country believes in a progressive tax system to limit to some extent the wealth disparities the market tends to produce in society.

    His attachment to that idea is stronger than his attachement to the notion of individual rights your country is based on... The founding ideals were not at odds. It is people who deviate from the founding ideals. And there is no compromise with the violation of individual rights.

    I have explained above how the notion that the United States was based on individual rights alone is a fallacy. If you want to take issue with the comments that support this from Adams, Hamilton, Washington, and Marshall, go right ahead. Now would be the time.

    In your opinion, what are the 'founding ideals' of this nation? Which ones were at odds? And in what ways were they compromised?

    You're asking me to teach a course on this board in 18th century American political thought? Because that's what it would take to answer that properly. We don't have the time or inclination for that. What we have before us is the proposition that the country's ideals included not just the protection and celebration of individual rights, but also that the country was a cohesive union of patriots who had cause to seek the betterment of society has a whole. The quotes ai have provided have demonstrated that.

    Regardless the fact remains that Obama is in favor of wealth distribution. Wealth redistribution is anti-American.

    Americans en mass believe in the progressive taxation system, and have for 100 years and more. And the progressive tax system is far less punitive to the rich than it ever has been. Furthermore, the Constitution gave the Congress authority to tax the citizenry, and so any use of those tax receipts can be seen as wealth redistribution; e.g: A bridge gets built to improve transportation. The contractor who builds the bridge benefits, the businesses that need the bridge to distribute their wares benefit, but the people with no reason to use the bridge do not benefit. Wealth redistribution is inevitable when you agree to tax the people.

    America is the nation where people made their ways on their own ability, not hand outs.

    Unless those handouts were from your rich dad. Since life expectancy wasn't anywhere near what it is today in the 18th century, no one foresaw the need for social security or medicare. No one foresaw how modern urban living and industrialization, combined with economic upturns and downturns, would give rise to the levels of unemployment that would occur, and the subsequent benefits of unemployment insurance. No one saw the benefits of making sure children could get proper medical attention, or food, despite the economic status of their parents, so that they could become productive citizens as adults. It is perfectly rational to assume that, given the state of minds of many of the founding fathers as evidenced by quotes here, they would have acquiesced to these public programs to provide/promote the general welfare.

    This last question might be unclear, so I'll elaborate. The studies that track wealth distribution can tell you how many people per capita earn how much, and how one bracket relates to another; what they don't tell you is who is in each bracket year to year - consequently they have absolutely nothing to say about income mobility throughout each bracket. For a larger explanation of this, see this piece by Thomas Sowell.

    In your post you kept conflating the concept of yearly income with wealth. These are two separate animals. Now, one learns this is in economics 101 at the college level, so I'm not sure how to address you on the matter because its unclear to me whether you have undertaken this level of study. Not trying to sound snotty but your familiarity of these concepts will determine how I should respond to you. Nevertheless, the Sowell article is political propaganda which, from my previous readings of him, is probably an intentional ploy to exploit people who don't know the difference between the two. Every economist knows people's income levels go up and down, but the level of wealth, the real determinant of prosperity and power, is more fixed (rock stars, professional athletes, and Madoff Ponzi scheme victims notwithstanding).

    The evidence for the meaning of the term general welfare has been provided to you. Alexander Hamilton believed in a looser interpretation but that was not true of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

    So then it is Hamilton who is anti-American. And Washington tended to side with him rather than Jefferson, so lump him in there too. And Adams has to be included because of his wariness of the rich and insistence the government promote the common good.

    Why don't you try arguing that these founding fathers did not mean what they clearly meant in the quotes I provided. I don't disagree that Jefferson and often Madison were very skeptical of the general welfare clause's liberal interpretation, but theirs were not the only voices on the matter.

    In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton implicitly confirmed Madison’s point. He argued that a bill of rights would be not only unnecessary, but dangerous on the grounds that since the federal government was given only a few specific powers, there was no need to add prohibitions: it was implicitly prohibited by the listed powers. If a proposed law wasn’t covered by any of these powers, it was unconstitutional. He said that adding a bill of rights would only confuse matters as it would imply that the federal government was entitled to do anything it wasn’t positively forbidden to do, whereas the principle of the Constitution was that the federal government is forbidden to do anything it isn’t positively authorized to do.

    He worried that if a Bill of Rights was written it would be perceived to be the ONLY rights people had where in actuality they would have much more. This worry was assuaged with the ninth amendment, which means that any right not explained in the Constitution is still a right of the people. He did not specify that only the specific powers enumerated in the constitution were granted. Here is an excerpt from this good summary:

    Hamilton believed safeguards against the abuse of power are built into the structure of the national government, such as the separation of powers and checks and balances. In this paper, Hamilton contends that he will examine six provisions designed to protect individual liberties. First, to protect the people against executive and judicial abuse of power, the Constitution provides the power to impeach. Second, the writ of habeas corpus (the right of a person arrested to imprisoned to be informed of the charges against him) shall not be suspended, "unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Next, Bills of attainder and ex-post-facto laws are prohibited. The great English jurist, Blackstone, believed that prohibiting these types of laws were the two most fundamental individual rights. Fourth, the Constitution states "no title of nobility should be granted by the United States." Hamilton writes that the importance of prohibition titles of nobility is paramount; if such titles were granted, the very foundation of republican government would be undermined. Fifth, the Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury in all criminal cases and sixth, treason is very carefully defined in the Constitution.

    The 1828 Webster’s dictionary lists two definitions for welfare: one to be applied to persons, and one to political bodies. As the Constitution was written to list the government’s restrictions, the definition for political bodies applies:

    The definition links welfare to protection and security. It is different from current definition of: Aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need; an agency or program through which such aid is distributed.

    You don't need to provide quotes from Jefferson, or Madison or anyone else, because I never objected to their point of view (although I would argue they never would have agreed in a million years to a government based on Objectivist principles). Remember the quotes only are relating to federal government, not the state government, which they were more fond of.

    And I amazed that you feel that the idea of what constitutes providing for the general welfare was never going to change in 220 years, that it would remain fixed based on the prevailing attitudes of a sparsely populated, highly religious agrarian society. Ideas change and evolve, and its good that they do. In 1780 you couldn't vote here, or do a great many things without the consent of your husband. Should we accept the 1828 dictionary definition of everything, and reject the progress of the last 180 years?

    I'm not going to be a dick and ask for quotes in which the Founding Fathers bring up that ying-yang cliche. Just provide some proof that they said individual rights and what they called "the general welfare of the country" are in any way, even seemingly, disjunct or opposing forces that need to be interconnected and made interdependent by President Obama's ying yang of vast redistribution of wealth.

    You've been allowed to skate on this general welfare for long enough. Time to provide proof that the Founding Fathers, in all those quotes, mean the same things Obama means by general welfare. Until then I'll remain convinced that the Progressive movement borrowed that concept and changed its meaning to suit their purposes, the same way they borrowed terms like liberal, human rights etc etc.

    You're just presenting a fancy version of the "every child has the right to Broadband Internet" (that's an exact quote from Obama), and rights are protected by government according to the Constitution, so they shall all receive Broadband Internet asap. By general welfare the founders of this country didn't mean a nanny-state providing everything the population might need to live confortably, that's plenty clear, and ridiculous to imagine that they did, when you look at how little America's leadership did, for the first 150 years, to provide for anything other than freedom and the Law. And yes, a nanny-state is exactly what you are pretending it means in those quotes, because that is the only way your argument holds up. Time to prove it then.

    Couldn't see where Obama said it was a "right." He said all Americans should have access to it, but that's not the same thing as saying it should be enshrined in the Constitution.

    What in jumping jehosaphat are you talking about? You feel the government is making every American's life peaches and cream? People on unemployment, welfare, social security, etc. are just in the lap of luxury? Give me a break.

    A hell of a lot more was done by the government in the first 150 years to provide for the prosperity of the people besides "freedom and the law." I am not doing tutoring here, so I'm not about to begin an exposition of the history of the American government unless I am compensated fairly for my time (my Paypal info can be provided if this appeals to anyone :D )

    I haven't responded to your posts because I feel the answers to your points were in my responses to others. Instead of me spending hours trying to cross reference Obama quotes and those of Hamilton, Adams, etc, why don't you just analyze the quotes I gave and indicate why you feel they were not advocating that government should, at least in some manner, be the steward of the greater good. If you can demonstrate this, then you would have a case that Obama is at least un-American because there would be no early intellectual fountain from which his ideas flow.

  4. But now Publius on an objectivist board is trying to demonstrate that the founding fathers did not believe in individual rights and liberty but instead on welfare ideals which had not yet even been practiced experimentally.

    Man you're not even paying attention. We needed to set the record straight about the interview and Sophia was misinterpreting the point he was making. But that is a sideshow. The real point of the discussion, and this is very important, is what it means to be an American, what are the founding ideals. This post split off from Capitalism_Forever's original essay on how Obama goes beyond un-American into full bore Anti-American. And I am challenging his assumptions on what exactly constitute the ideals of the founding fathers. My point is, and to correct your erroneous summary, is that the founding fathers did believe in individual rights, but also in the general welfare of the country as a whole. You might think of it like the Chinese concept of yin yang, which is used to describe how seemingly disjunct or opposing forces are interconnected and interdependent, giving rise to each other in turn. (from wiki)

    Now I've moved in academic mode and I am being very particular about what the founding fathers said so that there is no confusion.

  5. I have had this testimony on my mind all day today when thinking about the ideas of the first Americans. Here are the experts from Benjamin Franklin's testimony in the British Parliament in 1776.

    font]

    I'm not sure of the point you were trying to make, but in this country we learned in grade school that the colonists were opposed to taxation without representation, not to taxation itself.

    Interesting you brought up Franklin, because it was his idea to propose the general welfare clause to the constitution.

    More from Hamilton from the Report on Manufacturer's in 1791 (the definitive exposition on this view of the general welfare clause); Hamilton declared unequivocally that the Federal government had the right to promote manufactures under the General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8. The objects for which Congress can raise money, Hamilton explained, "are no less comprehensive then the payment of the Public debts, and providing for the common defense and the general Welfare.''

    He continued:

    "The terms `general Welfare' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limit than the `General Welfare' and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification or of definition.''

    Hamilton then says that it is left to the discretion of the legislature to determine what matters concern the general welfare, adding: "And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of {Learning,} of {Agriculture,} of {Manufactures,} and of {Commerce,} are within the sphere of the national Councils, {as far as regards an application of money.}"

    In his Final Address to the Congress in 1796, George Washington endorsed Hamilton's view.

    Washington noted that "Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed their attention to the encouragement of Manufactures,'' and he argued that much more needed to be done, especially invoking the idea of the dangers of the country remaining dependent on foreign supply.

    Washington also argued that, "with reference to individual, or National Welfare, Agriculture is of primary importance,'' and he proposed the creation of institutions for promoting agriculture through "premiums, and small pecuniary aids, to encourage and assist a spirit of discovery and improvement.''

    An illuminating anecdote from the Constitutional Convention provides a window into the discussion: Charles McHenry of Maryland suggested the inclusion of a power to enable the legislature to erect piers for the protection of shipping and as an aid to navigation. Gouverneur Morris advised McHenry that this could be done under the General Welfare clause.

    And finally, I will post this item from a good web page on this subject. It pertains to the first Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall, and his interpretation of this matter:

    As Hamilton emphasized over and over again, the national government cannot promote the general welfare unless it has the power to do so. This was not a settled issue in the early years of the Republic--indeed, to some, it is still yet not a settled issue today.

    It fell to John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, to ensure that the Hamiltonian view was established as our fundamental law. Marshall's 1819 opinion in the case involving the National Bank, {McCulloch v. Maryland,} is a milestone for the confirmation of the national government's exercise of its power to promote the general welfare--and, it is also clear, to carry out its Manifest Destiny as a Continental Republic, ``from sea to shining sea.''

    The background of the case was as follows. The second Bank of the United States was created in 1816, after the refusal of Congress to recharter the Bank on the eve of the War of 1812. But the bank was horribly mismanaged, and the Monroe administration pursued free trade and a veto of internal improvements. By the beginning of 1819, the Bank of the United States had collapsed, insolvencies and bankruptcy fraud were rampant, and the credit system and the economy as a whole were in utter chaos.

    The case before the Supreme Court grew out of the attempts by the state of Maryland (among others) to tax the operations of the Bank. In his ruling reaffirming the power of Congress to establish a national bank--and repudiating the attempt of Maryland to destroy it--Marshall drew directly on Hamilton's arguments in the ``Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank.''

    Marshall began in the logical place--the Preamble to the Constitution. Remarking on the conditions under the Confederation, Marshall wrote, the states themselves were competent to form the Confederation. ``But when, `In order to form a more perfect union,' it was deemed necessary to change this alliance in to an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly upon the people; the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its power directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by all.

    ``The government of the Union, then ... is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from then, its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.''

    (If this has a familiar echo, it should. By some accounts, Abraham Lincoln's ``of the people, by the people, for the people'' is derived directly from Marshall's opinion in the bank case.)

    Against the so-called ``strict constructionists,'' (or nominalists, we could call them), Marshall argued that the nature of a Constitution is such ``that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated,'' and that everything else flows from that. Otherwise, a constitution would contain such an immense amount of detail, that it would be nothing but a legal code, ``and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind.''

    Thus, although we don't find the word ``bank'' or ``incorporation'' among the enumerated powers of government, he writes, we do ``find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct war; and to raise and support armies and navies.''

    The happiness and prosperity of the nation require not only that the general government has ample powers, but that it has ample means for their execution. ``Throughout this vast republic, from the St. Croix, to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched, and supported.'' Are we to adopt a construction of the Constitution, he asks, that would make it impossible to transfer revenues from one part of the county to another?

    (Interestingly, this expansive statement is delivered just at the time of the Onis Treaty, by John Quincy Adams with Spain, was part of Adams' ``Manifest Destiny'' plan for a U.S. Continental Republic.)

    From there, Marshall develops the critical point: that the Constitution confers upon Congress all the powers ``necessary and proper'' to carry out its purposes.

    The subject at issue, Marshall writes, ``is the execution of those great powers upon which the welfare of a nation essentially depends.'' Those who granted those powers, certainly intended to ensure their beneficial execution. ``This provision is made in a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.''

    Finally, Marshall comes to his conclusion--which is so crucial for the exercise of the General Welfare clause:

    ``Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional....'

  6. ... he wants redistributive change. If that is what he wants, then in no way could he be happy that it failed in the courts.

    Obama is saying that the court is an inadequate mechanism to enact such change. So therefore he would not want such change to be initiated there. He said he and almost any law scholar could concoct a plausible rationalization to do so, but he would not do so, even if given the chance. If you go through the courts, you won't get a comprehensive approach (as anyone who has studied constitutional law can say), so its actually can be counterproductive to do so. Just because he wants a certain outcome doesn't mean he isn't prudent enough to know the best way there.

    The fact that the constitution specified what government could do, and that all else was prohibited, is easily understood. That said, positive public programs are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution so I fail to understand how they are not constitutional.

    As Obama said, the Constitution outlines what the government can't do, now what it can do. If the founding fathers tried to enumerate every single thing the the government could do to best protect individual rights, national security, and the general welfare, it would have been a completely unworkable and shortly outlived document.

    Even Hamilton's quote does not justify the last 100 years. He wrote, "tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!" People are not oppressed by the wealth of others, are they? If not than "redistributive change," has no place in the US.

    Now you're getting to the interesting part. One of the main concerns of the founding fathers was the presence of factions in society and their detrimental impact. Here is John Adams in a letter to Jefferson in 1787: "You are afraid of the one-I of the few. We agree perfectly that the many should have a full fair and perfect representation. You are apprehensive about monarchy, I of aristocracy. "

    Even at that early time, Adams and others considered the wealthy to be a faction that could wield undue influence contrary to the common people. In A Defence of the constitutions of government of the United States, he writes: "If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest or that of their families, counties and party to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution in favor of justice to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations."

    Is John Adams anti-American? Hamilton?

  7. Obama, on the other hand, rejects prosperity and freedom as moral ideals to strive for, and is actively working to destroy them.

    I have to echo The Egoist's point in that you paint Obama as a political arsonist who's aim is to destroy America. You don't even acknowledge the likelihood that he has good intentions. I don't know how you can have read anything about the man and come to that conclusion.

    Your opening essay, while long on rhetoric, is short on specific criticism. Your disagreements are implied but clear: you oppose his positions on progressive taxation, campaign finance reform, and the Fairness Doctrine. Although it is an entertaining rant, I found it hyperbolic and hard to take seriously intellectually. Your credibility with me was completely gone when I got to: And most of them are genuinely at a loss to understand how a philosophy...is going to help defend them from the very concrete machine guns of Obama's agents. I can only assume you meant we dissenting Americans can expect to be rounded up by "Obama's agents" in the still of night? Way over the top.

    Your reading of American history is that of someone who selectively chooses the parts, and the views of only certain individuals, that bolsters their ideology. This country was and always will be one that celebrates and strives for both individual freedom and the good of the country as a whole. This is indisputable. There were many founding ideals that were at odds with each other, and they had to be resolved by the great American tradition of compromise. The reason Objectivism is not fully compatible with American ideals is that it cannot be compromised with, it is a closed ideology. The political seed for Objectivism will not be planted on American soil.

  8. I don't insist that he advocated for using the courts to accomplish his goal of wealth redistribution. I am arguing that he advocates wealth redistribution itself, through any means necessary. This includes grass roots, social disobedience, and legislation, primarily. Do you understand and/or agree with this much?

    You said: "He is clearly implying(as clear as he ever is) that the courts did not go far enough." That's why I said you were misreading the quote and the context of the interview. You were defending Sophia's take on the interview, and she is still insisting that he said in the interview, not outside of it, that he wanted the court to be more involved in deciding redistributive public policy. Summary:

    I said: "So the quote has Obama saying that it was good the Warren Court did not get into that business of redistributing wealth." (Post #3)

    Sophia said: "No... in this quote Obama expresses his criticism. He finds it regretful that it did not. He wishes it did. " (Post #4)

    Here is Obama later in the interview: You know, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although, you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally -- you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it.

    So how can this be interpreted as "he wishes it did"?

    That's the whole point of the disagreement. You can't slither around it now and say, "Well, he favors redistribution in general." Of COURSE he favors redistribution of wealth, just not through the courts. That has been the American tradition for over 100 years (and even longer if you look at the attitudes of those such as Hamilton -see quote I provided- towards a society that looks out for the least wealthy. And it is based on the empirical evidence of hundreds of years of observation that capitalism pools wealth disproportionately. That's why I say Objectivists should not too closely associate themselves with American ideals, because American ideals, while overlapping at times with Objectivist principles, are fundamentally different.

    That someone here would persist in this troll like behavior of making bold and inflammatory, unsupported remarks and then ignore all criticism , across multiple threads, is both juvenile and tiresome.

    I take exception to the troll remark. I am not making inflammatory statements, and they are supported with argument and evidence. Don't reduce this to attacks on personal integrity.

  9. You are still completely ignoring his obvious tone and his previous actions. He was not making a remark or a hypothetical suggestion as to how best redistribute wealth. He is speaking from experience. He is clearly implying(as clear as he ever is) that the courts did not go far enough. I am curious what motivation you have for continually disregarding it.

    Considering that he explicitly said that the courts are not there to decide such public policy, I find it quite bizarre that you continue to insist that he advocated for it.

    Do you honestly not see the direct contradiction in these statements?

    Not at all. Feel free to enlighten me though.

    What you are doing disregarding the particular enumerated powers and focusing on the general statement. That was clearly not the intent. The idea was to do the opposite. If the founders wished the Constitution to be vague as you suggest, they could have wrapped up the whole Constitutional Convention in a matter of moments with the following declaration:

    We the people hereby authorize this and future congresses to provide for the general welfare however they choose to define it.

    That would be ignoring the entire remainder of the document, which limits quite significantly what the government can do to provide for the general welfare.

    Keep in mind Madison as president did approve money for national infrastructure, because he thought it was in the general welfare. The argument we are having is the same one Madison and Hamilton had over 200 years ago. Although I'm sure even Madison would cringe at your severely limited interpretation of state power. Let's also bring Hamilton into the discussion, because he was the main driver of the more liberal interpretation of the general welfare clause. In Federalist 36: "Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!"

    The point is there is no definitive way to say what "the founding fathers" believed, because they disagreed. And that is essentially the point here, that the founding fathers were not of one mind on such matters. We're not even taking into account that most of this is moot anyway because the Congress justifies most of its power through the use of the Commerce Clause anyway.

  10. OK, lets do that. Here is Madison from Federalist No. 45:

    The quote you provided says nothing of limiting the power of the state to XYZ, only that it is best for state government to wield that power. Madison waffled back and forth between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

    And here is Madison in the same paper: "It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object."

    The Constitution was not a grand compromise, at least not in the way you mean it. All of those assembled were united behind the idea that that the governing principle behind the Constitution was the limitation on the power of government. The powers are enumerated.

    It is clear to me that it is you who are ignoring the context of the entire constitutional convention and the squabbles that took place. Yes the Constitution limits the powers of the government, nobody would dispute that. But can you possibly believe that the founding fathers saw themselves as omniscient enough to decide what actions would be needed by the government on into the future to ensure the general welfare? They left this purposely vague for a reason, while still limiting the government's power to limit people's freedoms with the Bill or Rights and the checks and balances system.

    What I find so vexing is the insistence among Objectivists that America is somehow congruous with Objectivist ideals, when the powers granted to the government to tax and ensure the general welfare are explicitly written into the founding document.

  11. Now it's your turn. Rewrite his statement with soe realistic context of his past actions as a defense of property rights.

    He is saying is that "wealth redistribution" is not guaranteed by the constitution, so it would constitute a radical shift in the way we view the constitution for a court to require wealth to be redistributed. That says nothing about what a legislator or executive can do in regards to positive public programs, and the resulting behavior of lower courts. The essential point: The constitution is such that it restrains the government, the Warren court wasn't radical because it's ruling are compatible with this view.

    Positive public programs are neither constitutionally required nor flatly unconstitutional, they are a matter of legislation.

    Now as to Obama on property rights, here he is in his book Audacity of Hope: "Our Constitution places the ownership of private property at the very heart of our system of liberty.... The result of this business culture has been a prosperity that's unmatched in human history.... Our greatest asset has been our system of social organization, a system that for generations has encouraged constant innovation, individual initiative and the efficient allocation of resources."

    That's borderline ad hominem and a ridiculous attempt at discrediting Michelle by way of hypocrisy anyways. If I say that I like a quote by Aristotle or Thomas Jefferson it does not imply that I am also in favor of slavery or an in agreement with any other view then the one I claim to like. A poor attempt at a poor fallacy. Show some class.

    Sorry, but if Objectivists believe a statist is about the worst thing you can be in politics, I find it profoundly hypocritical that someone would post a quote from one of the most notable statists in American history. At best it is poor form, at worst it is akin to celebrating a quote from FDR or Keynes.

  12. I explained in the opening post. In fact, the theme of the whole essay is that Americans have just elected an anti-American President.

    I didn't see anything specifically saying why he was anti-American, just things you disagreed with him about. You basically said that the only way to be an American is to be an Objectivist.

  13. The defined what they meant in their other writings prior to and subsequent to the drafting of the Constitution. Nate T. pointed you to a statement from Jefferson that makes it quite clear as to what was meant. Are you now going to declare that Jefferson's words are "open to interpretation"?

    Who is this "they" you are referring to? Were all the founding fathers in uniform agreement about what this country should be about? Absolutely not. Why only pay attention to the writings of Jefferson, the Anti-Federalist? What about Hamilton, Jay, Madison, etc? Understand that not everyone got their say in what the Constitution ultimately became. It is a document of compromise, recognizing the inevitable differences of opinion, and it resolved those differences in a satisfactory way for almost everyone. It is not a document that reflects the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists, but a mixture of the two.

    Section 8 is pretty explicit in enumerating the specific areas for which the Congress can lay and collect taxes, etc... to promote the general welfare. This was not an open invitation to tax and spend in the manner of today's politicians and the modern welfare state.

    No, lets' get it right: to provide for the general welfare. And it means whatever the Congress, that we elect by the way, deems it should mean, subject to the limits of the Constitution. It was written purposely vague so that the national legislature could decide for itself at any point in the future what it considered in the general welfare of the nation. As the world grew more complex, it was obvious the purview of the federal government was going to have to change.

    The man is a statist and he holds little or no regard for individual property rights. That makes him anti-American because he promotes government policies and ideas that run counter to the principles upon which this nation was founded.

    Name me a president in the last 100 years, hell since Jefferson, that wasn't a statist. All have interceded in the personal, social or economic matters of individual citizens when it was in the state's interest to do so.

    It is clear to me that you are an intellectually dishonest person. Our exchange here is done.

    And I would say the same. Although I find it peculiar that you quote TR in your signature. TR was a huge statist.

  14. It is you who is evading his meaning.

    Seems we'll have to differ on that, but I can't see how a person thinking rationally could take it to mean what you think it means. And seeing how most people never brought it up again it once it was out of the headlines (headlines in conservative media that is), I think the whole thing was much ado about nothing cooked up by people with ulterior motives.

    NO! You're wrong on this. Here is the actual quote:

    "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    There is a crucial difference between promoting the general welfare (i.e. creating an environment where men are free, individual rights are respected, and there is the rule of law) and "providing for the general welfare", i.e. becoming a welfare state.

    I'm not sure how you arrived at the definition of "promote", but since the founding fathers did not more clearly define what they meant, it is open to interpretation. I suppose they could have been more explicit, but it looks like they wanted to allow future generations to think for themselves a little bit. Luckily they bring it up again, using the language that you say authorizes the welfare state. Section 8 of Article one reads in part: "The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States..."

    How is Obama anti-American?

  15. I know this quote very well.. in it's full context. The misinterpretation is on your part.

    Obama said that the civil rights movement relied too much on the courts in its efforts to bring about political and economic justice. He thought they should have been more focused on community organizing to mobilize people. Any other way of looking at that quote is just a futile attempt at spinning. Him speaking about negative liberties is just in reference to the false expectation that the court should be expected to do things it is not designed to do.

    Anyway, I am still wondering why Obama is considered anti-American?

  16. No... in this quote Obama expresses his criticism. He finds it regretful that it did not. He wishes it did.

    I think if you read closer, you'll find that is not what he was saying at all. Of course, you'll need to know the context of the quote. Your misinterpretation stems from how this quote was twisted and lifted from context. Here is a larger portion of the interview where this comes from, where you can see more about what he is talking about. You'll see he is discussing the civil rights movement and how many over-relied on the courts to effect change. He is not talking about how he wished the courts were more involved, and is not even discussing tax policy.

    So again, how is Obama anti-American?

  17. "American", used in this context, means: in the spirit of upholding individual rights in their proper sense. Not this:

    So the quote has Obama saying that it was good the Warren Court did not get into that business of redistributing wealth. Sounds good to me.

    So America has never been about striving for the betterment of the country as a whole, only the protection of individual rights?

  18. He brings up the ideals of the Founding Fathers but inverts/obfuscates their meaning to sell his anti-American agenda.

    Can you say what part of his agenda is anti-American?

    They have also had it hammered into their head that politics consists of deciding which interest group gets what from the government, and that our government is here to provide for the general welfare

    Isn't there a provision in the US Constitution that grants the Legislative branch responsibility to provide for the general welfare? I think its also in the Preamble.

  19. You're ignoring the fact that the government created the secondary market for mortgages through Fannie and Freddie, two GSEs. The implicit government guarantee extended to Fannie and Freddie allowed those GSEs to have lower costs of funds while funneling the returns to private investors.

    Fannie Mae has been independently operated since 1968. This GSE managed to operate for 40 years without sabotaging the economy. What changed? The subprime mortgage market became a lucrative business. And it wasn't the GSE's that supercharged the market for subprime mortgages Here is a summary of how it all evolved:

    Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

    During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

    In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

    the government created the oligopoly in rating agencies that caused much of the mispricing of risk in the CDO markets.

    Not sure how the government directly manipulates the rating agencies. However, these are some good reasons to be critical of the rating agencies and their role in this mess.

    On top of all of these factors, perhaps the most important was the government's control of the money supply and interest rates. By keeping rates too low, the Fed financed the housing boom. If you can look at all of these distortions introduced into the market by government and still say that greedy businessmen were the cause, I'd say you need to re-examine your premises.

    I'll agree the interest rates were a contributing factor. But I find it difficult to imagine, despite all the government involvement in the economy, that smart people couldn't see that there were incredible risks involved in continuing to buy mortgage backed securities, and selling insurance on them. Wall Street continued on despite the risks, and its not hard to see why. Everyone was getting a cut of the action, and the the payouts were so lucrative no one wanted to be sitting on the sidelines. There were plenty of people warning of impending disaster. Few chose to listen.

  20. So as a group men make more money and are seen as less risky investments. As individuals, however, the statistics tell you little or nothing. the company I work for has some women in high positions with the same salaries as their male counterparts, and we operate in Mexico City.

    I give you points for trying, because I agree with some of what you say about women in the workplace, but your thesis falls apart when you get to "So as a group...". At this point you seemed to catch the incongruity of the first part of your post with that paragraph and tried to make amends. Simply put, women are prejudged before they even get the job based on their belonging to a group. This is why they are not paid the same. Women don't get paid less after they come back from maternity, or when they get pregnant, or when they give hints of their intentions. It is a systemic bias against women as a group that leads to the pay disparity. Your theory would be more applicable to disparities in hiring.

    Finally, these days in America, outside of a few fringe groups, being seen as racist is like the kiss of death. It's not socially aceptable anymore. It's not even tolerated.

    It's not socially acceptable anymore to talk about. But as a white person, I can account for a fair prevalence of racist thoughts among people of all economic, age and social groups I interact with. Most of the time is is fairly benign. People customarily preface their comments with, "I'm not racist, but...". Good upstanding people still get nervous when blacks move in the neighborhood. Much (though I wouldn't say most) of the anti immigration rhetoric in this country is marked by racist sentiment towards Latinos.

    And perhaps you caught this story.

  21. 100% wrong. Private companies have to file annual EEO Reports with the government to prove that they are hiring minorities.

    Check for facts before making your assertions.

    What are the differences between affirmative action and equal employment opportunity policies?

    Equal employment opportunity (EEO) is best described as a policy of simple nondiscrimination, in compliance with legislation prohibiting all forms of intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. It specifically outlaws discrimination in employment in all public and private sector organizations with 15 or more employees, as well as labor organizations and employment agencies.

    Affirmative action goes further by requiring employers to take steps to achieve a balanced representation of workers.

    Thus, affirmative action and EEO policies both strive to maintain justice. Classical affirmative action, however, involves effort. In contrast, equal employment opportunity policies are passive.

    Well now, you've pretty much demolished the supposed morality of your social contract, haven't you?

    Why do you call it my social contract? I'm just simply educating you on philosophical underpinnings of the soceity you live in. I never said I agreed with it. It's going to help you a lot in the long run if you argue with the actual concepts that are in opposition to Objectivism, not some cartoonish version.

    As for the evidence that capitalism reduces racism, it's all around you. Look at the countries where racism and tribalism are the most severe. Are they countries that respect individual rights? Do they have free markets in those countries?

    Sorry, but you don't seem to be grasping the difference between correlation and causation. Where is the mechanism and how is it demonstrated?

    As for your statement that racism in the North was almost as rampant as the South, I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about.

    When blacks started moving out of the south during the Great Migration from 1910-1940, northern racism came into full view. Look at all the race riots that took place, particularity in Detroit. There's plenty of evidence for ubiquitous white racism. They just never passed Jim Crow laws because there were not that many blacks in the north.

    Here's an excerpt written by George Reisman

    Trying to read it but it gets cut off on page 4.

    Also, why don't you provide all of us with a couple of examples where a non-capitalist society has been able to rid itself of racism strictly through legislation and restrictions on individual rights?

    I never made that claim that you're asking me to provide evidence for. People here, on the other hand, said that they have no doubt that capitalism thwarts racism, but yet I have seen no evidence yet.

  22. There is absolutely no question whether taxes are wrong

    Hmm, what is this thread about? Let me just take a look at the TITLE OF THE THREAD. Oh, and throw in post #6 (was that you?)

    Oh well, never mind. David told me in an IM that he wants me to shut up now.

    No more fun talk about social contracts and political pluralism I guess. <_<

  23. Let's not forget that nobody would do business with someone after it got out that they fired/refused to provide service to someone based on their skin colour

    The vast majority of people in the modern world are not racists. They would no more consider not serving a man because of the colour of his skin than they would consider robbing and killing him outright.

    Okay so now we're saying Capitalism only in America for the hypothetical here? Okay, fine. Well you would have the benefit of the most racially evolved society in the world to make your point. However, racism/discrimination in America is not dead, not even close. Take a trip to the South, particularly the rural parts of the south. Why do studies demonstrate people with African American sounding names do not get close to the same number of call backs when they submit a resume? Why do women make 75 cents on the dollar compared to men for doing the same job? If you put 100 strangers of different races in a room, they will group themselves together by race.

    Beyond America, if you're a little familiar with say, oh just about every other culture in the world, most especially outside of Western Europe, the idea that the "vast majority" of people get along irregardless or race, well that is pure fantasy. Observe the recent ethnic wars in the Balkans, Rwanda, Indonesia, Sudan, Iraq, etc. The social hierarchy of Latin America is usually directly related to ethnic background. And racism can flare up again at any time. Look at Europe, as more immigrants from Africa come to work, you're seeing racial attitudes reemerge that haven't been seen in generations. In America, as the demographics rapidly change to bring whites closer to a minority, you may see something similar.

    How do you think racism was reduced in this country? When you eliminate racist laws and allow Capitalism to work (as was done in the South), people relatively quickly decide that it is in their interest to deal with others as individuals as opposed to as members of a given race.

    There were racist laws because the people demanded racist laws. You cannot separate the people from the government in a democracy. Just like you won't get an Objectivist government until most people want one. Do you think when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed blacks started getting treated fairly the next day? In the North they didn't have Jim Crow laws for the most part, but racism was almost as rampant.

    Racism has largely been tamped down due to a combination of education, assimilation, civil rights laws and enforcement. If someone has actual evidence, not conjecture, on how capitalism somehow reduces prejudice, I'd like to hear about it. Everyone hear is making that claim, based purely on a belief that it is true.

    Currently the government forces employers to discriminate when making hiring decisions. They are forced to act as if an employee's value lies in his skin color, ethnicity or physical handicap instead of his individual abilities and character.

    No they don't, unless the company has been found by a court of law to have discriminated against someone. Affirmative Action otherwise only applies to government hiring.

  24. This is, however, entirely beside the point, since the question at hand is whether there is a valid argument that taxation is indeed voluntary because by buying property one agrees to submit to the will of the state. That claim has been amply refuted, and the option of voting a government out of office is irrelevant to the central question.

    The question at hand is whether taxes are wrong, and why or why not. That is the argument Focus is having, and that is the subject you yourself addressed earlier here. Surely this is what he would like to know more about, more than simply whether taxation is agreed to because you bought property. This is not the established justification for taxation under the social contract anyway.

  25. A rational business person does not look at skin color as a qualifier for a job. What is important are the qualifications of the potential employee. Besides, why would a person have a right to a job? The business is not owned by him. The laws today are stepping on the rights of business people by forcing them to accept under-qualified people.

    Do we live in a world where all people are rational, or even most people? The claim was made that capitalism would in fact reduce discrimination. So I was asking for evidence of this.

×
×
  • Create New...