|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/27/2013 7:48:16 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It's "We The People" because the source of all rights and authorities lies within We The People. That's the point of the use of that phrase. All authorities listed in the US Constitution are granted to the Federal Government. They were granted from those who had that authority, which was We The People.
So, are you saying that once We The People grant these authorities to the Federal government, we can’t or shouldn’t get them back?
It seems that the Founders had a bit of a split personality on the issue. On the one hand, they wanted the power to rest with the People, but then, they implemented barriers to reduce the power of the People (such as creating the Electoral College and making the Supreme Court and Cabinet posts unelected).
So, can we trust the People to have the power or not?
The Electoral College preserves the representative republic at the expense of a pure democracy. The Supreme Court is insulated from having to be re-elected, thereby supposedly allowing them to be impartial and judicious.
Once the power has been granted, it can be taken back, but that's going to be quite a feat, if you ask me.
quote:
quote:
I understand your point. Economies of scale means that larger businesses are going to tend to have some cost-savings compared to smaller businesses where the two compete. There does come a point where further economies of scale are no longer realized, too. This is where we need that wall separating government and business (the one that deters in both directions, as we've previously discussed).
We might also need a wall separating big business from small business.
And if the issue here is States’ Rights, then perhaps a wall separating businesses from businesses in other States. If there’s limited Federal oversight, then States will have to impose measures to protect their own interests.
Is this about State's Rights? Only in part. It's more about making sure the apparatus for governance isn't insulated from the We the People.
quote:
quote:
I think you're making a leap of epic absurdity there. "Limiting" does not mean there is no power.
Power is fluid. When you take away power from government, it will leave a power vacuum to be quickly filled by other entities. Rarely is there ever “Power to the People” (even if that’s how it should be).
That’s how the Mob got powerful in the first place. Either the government didn’t have the authority or power to stop them, or they were bribed or kept in line by other means.
Let’s not forget some of our history here. In times when government power was more limited (or so geographically distant as to be impotent), things were pretty wild in this country. We had range wars and massacres in the West. Klan violence and Jim Crow in the South. Urban unrest and Mob violence in the North. As a practical measure, power had to be consolidated, and government had to be organized so as to bring order to this chaotic bedlam.
Considering what was needed at the time and what we would be called upon to do during the World Wars and the Cold War (which required massive organization and a harnessing of our national resources), it seemed that they made the right move – at least from a practical and organizational viewpoint. Whether it was in line with the Founding Fathers’ intentions or ideologically “pure” from a conservative point of view is beside the point. Just as liberals are often criticized as “impractical,” conservatives also have their own measure of ideological impracticality.
Government okayed the Jim Crow laws as Constitutional, at one point, didn't they? Klan violence is more likely to be more curtailed now because of the society, rather than government's power. What the Klan did wasn't legal, and was against human rights. It was a proper action of government to protect the rights of the Citizens equally.
quote:
quote:
Most of the tax breaks Big Oil enjoys are also enjoyed by all other businesses in the US. Not all, but most of them. There are some that are specific to mining, which not every business in the US can take advantage of.
Living in the Copper State most of my life, I’ve gotten an earful from miners and ex-miners about the business practices of the mining companies.
You ever hear the song “Sixteen Tons” by Tennessee Ernie Ford?
quote:
And, this is where I'm opposed to punishing one business because it's politically possible. That's what government does to tobacco manufacturers. If tobacco is such an evil thing, why isn't it outlawed completely?
I think there are some people who would like to outlaw it completely, but they’ve got their hands full with the War on Drugs, not to mention the lessons we’ve learned from Prohibition.
But this is where I lose respect for capitalists and other “free market” types, since they seem to go conspicuously silent when it comes to things like this. If they’re going to just stand by and let the government do this to one industry, then they have no room to talk if/when the government does it to their industry.
That’s the best reason for not trusting the private sector at all, since they talk out of both sides of their mouths and have no real backbone or principles to stand for. quote:
It's more a "pick your battles" thing than anything else. The attacks on the free market system are so many, it's difficult to defend against every encroachment. Plus, it's tough to stand up for others when you're already standing up for yourself.
quote:
quote:
It's about what's good for the coffers, not what's good for the coughers (sorry... couldn't resist). GE, Apple, and a whole bunch of other businesses enjoy a profit margin much higher than Big Oil, but they get a pass in the political realm. Big Oil gets demonized simply because their gross sales are massive. Lower profit margins still produce larger profits because of the sheer gross volume of sales.
When you start talking about all the businesses in a certain sector, you are singling them out and not applying the laws evenly. You are giving signals to move resources from one sector into another. That should not be Government's authority.
I disagree. While I’m reluctant to quote Star Trek here, I’m reminded of the phrase “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few – or the one.” A few bad sectors of the economy might have to be tamed in order to benefit other sectors.
It’s often been said that a tax cut would be a tremendous boost to the economy, as it would free up capital for spending and investment. It makes sense, as it could free up a good deal of cash for a business by reducing expenses. But the same thing could be said for other expenses as well. Nearly every business depends on and is at the mercy of Big Oil, so if their energy and fuel costs could be reduced, it would have the same effect of boosting the overall economy.
Same thing with rents and property values. I’ve seen a number of businesses go under just because their rent was too high. It wasn’t due to taxes or governmental interference, but it was just due to rent. If there were strict price controls in that area, even if it might restrict one industry, it could still be of benefit to countless other industries. The needs of the many.
Then there’s health insurance, of course. That’s another big expense borne by many businesses, and I’m sure most of them would like to find ways to lower those costs as well.
Think of any business you know of and what it would mean to them if their monthly overhead costs could be reduced by 50-75%. Think of the possibilities if only we could just think outside the box and not paint ourselves into an ideological corner.
While it would be a wonderful thing for costs to drop 50-75%, there is this little matter of how those prices are going to drop. Government meddling won't just make it happen by pen and paper. If you fuck with the Market enough, you'll have loads of shortages and greater suffering than we have now. It's great that a loaf of bread is only fifty cents. Now, if there were only bakers baking bread. No one would be bakers because no one would be able to earn enough to break even.
quote:
quote:
Overnight? Maybe, but not over any night in my history. Reagan sure didn't seem to be an isolationist, and I'm not sure you can say that about Nixon/Ford, either.
I’m speaking of before Nixon. Before World War II, most conservatives were isolationist and were the driving force behind America’s refusal to join the League of Nations and our delay in entering World War II. Many Americans still believed in staying out of world affairs and any kind of permanent alliance system – “No foreign entanglements.”
After World War II, however, the conservatives did an about face and became rabid interventionists, becoming even more warlike and hawkish than the Democrats ever were.
I'll take your word on it.
quote:
quote:
Boy, talk about a high burden of proof! lol
It's really tough to prove what would have happened, but they did note the expansion of Federal power over that of the States ramped up not long after 1913.
I’m not really looking for any kind of absolute “proof” or anything. I’m just looking for some kind of example, even if it’s just wild speculation or supposition. I’m not trying to be difficult here; I just wish to understand what the problem is with the 17th Amendment, at least on a practical, organizational, and/or civil rights basis.
I guess what I’m wondering is, what do I, as an individual U.S. citizen and citizen of the State of Arizona, personally lose as a result of the existence of the 17th Amendment?
I don’t care if you can prove it or not. Just give me your wildest imagining of a worst case scenario, just so I can at least understand and get a handle on what the actual complaint is about the 17th Amendment. I’m not trying to be contentious here; I’m just trying determine if there’s a direct connection and causation between the 17th Amendment and the more insidious aspects of “Big Gov” under discussion.
Even if I agreed with everything else you’re saying, I might still ask, “Why waste time on the 17th Amendment? Why pick that battle over many others that might be picked?” It just seems like a rather insignificant and innocuous thing, even at its possible worst.
The 17th Amendment is but a skirmish in the overall battle against the growth of the bureaucratic state.
You'll have to do your own research on that, Zonie. It's going to be pretty tough for anyone to tell you how things would have played out differently.
|
|
|
|
