You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Stop Blaming Capitalism for the Failures of Socialism

in #economics • 6 years ago

"A major part of the problem is ignorance of civics and economics. Not coincidentally, those subjects have been disappearing since the US Department of Education was created in 1979 to create yet another massive federal bureaucracy whose primary function is perpetuating its own existence. As all "institutions" do."

well said

6 years ago in #economics by
$0.11
  • Past Payouts $0.11
  • - Author $0.08
  • - Curators $0.03
3 votes
Reply 8
Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     6 years ago 

    We could do well to abolish most of these "institutions", and take a long hard look at all the rest. Strict adherence to the Constitution would go far to righting the wrongs of the parasitic F'ed .GOV that has taken over. Getting back to that point is a good start...

    $0.03
    • Past Payouts $0.03
    • - Author $0.02
    • - Curators $0.01
    3 votes
    Reply
    [-]
     6 years ago (edited)

    My solutions would be the following:

    1. Re-try the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.. The SCOTUS did not issue a ruling in that case, but the court reporter's headnote afterward indicated that the Court's "sense" was that Southern Pacific Railroad did, in fact, possess rights under the US Constitution - in that case the 14th Amendment. Citizens United v. FEC could not have occurred without the foundation of the Santa Clara non-ruling. Prior to that time, most corporations were chartered, usually with public funds, to build a bridge or a road or a dam or whatever, usually for 10 or 15 years. Often these charters were extended because such projects tend to take longer than expected, but once the project was complete, the corporation was dissolved. This would not mean you could not incorporate, only that if you did so with public funds, your charter would be limited to completion of whatever the public had funded you to achieve.

    2. File suit in the US Supreme Court against the Congress and Federal Reserve for colluding to violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the US Constitution - the "Coinage Clause". Want to "end the Fed"? Congress is constitutionally mandated to perform that duty and not outsource it to crony banksters.

    3. End "The War on Drugs". The DEA is an administrative agency, which means this can be done with the stroke of a pen, and every US President since its creation knows it. Congress could also choose to de-fund it, and they know it.

    4. Move for a Constitutional Amendment making membership in the Union voluntary. Prospective states would still have to jump through the existing hoops to attain statehood, but could leave the Union anytime they wanted. This would restore the 10th Amendment and limit the federal government to only the most essential functions, such as national defense.

    Incidentally, do you know the last time the Department of Defense was actually used for defense of the United States?
    ...
    ...
    1916 at The Battle of Columbus, when Pancho Villa briefly invaded Texas and New Mexico. It was called The Department of War at the time. We use it for offense, not for defense.

    Pearl Harbor doesn't count, because Hawaii was not admitted as a state until 1959.

    $0.17
    • Past Payouts $0.17
    • - Author $0.13
    • - Curators $0.04
    3 votes
    Reply
    [-]
     6 years ago (edited)

    #2, 3, partly 4 and about the "Dept. of Defense" I have said the same or similar things for a long time. As far as corporations having "rights" like people, I agree we really need to strike that down. I have actually heard it said in conjunction with that debate, that "Corporate 'RIGHTS' exceed personal rights" in most instances.
    THIS IS BS!!!
    Corporate Interests obviously do exceed the rights of citizen's in many cases. Likely MOST Cases. That has got to end!

    Side Note: If this abomination they are calling "The Caravan" is met with the US Military, would that qualify for "National DEFENSE" in your opinion? I have also heard that there is a second one behind it, and these idiots are ARMED. We shall see, but in that case, meet force with force, IMO. For the armed bunch.

    [-]
     6 years ago 

    I don't think it's that simple.

    Are they posing a threat to this country?

    Is it relevant that US foreign policy (Woodrow Wilson's application of The Monroe Doctrine to Latin America, in particular) is the main reason folks are fleeing their shitty countries?

    Aren't borders just imaginary lines we draw to justify war (profiteering)?

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       6 years ago (edited)

      We cannot fix the sins of the past (of which there is a multitude) until we address the current problems. Borders have been used that way, yes. But you have also dodged the question, and I am using this in the same exact context as you did above citing the 1916 Poncho Villa Incursion ;)

      Yes, they are posing a threat. Even if only for setting a very bad precedent. The second caravan, if it is indeed armed, poses a much more serious threat. I'm not so sure their existence and "readiness" is factual, however. That would be utter suicide.

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         6 years ago 

        What would you do, in their position?

        You're advocating the mass-murder of civilians?

        No, I don't think even the ideal outcome, from that perspective, justifies the cost, financially, and especially in the lives that would likely be lost.

        "We" are not worth more than "them". Folks is folks, pretty much wherever you are in the world.

        [-]
         6 years ago (edited)

        What would you do, in their position?

        Stay Home! Or at least try and come in legally, or slip by at another time when the whole world is not watching...

        You're advocating the mass-murder of civilians?

        Definitely not, and if you missed it, I was strictly speaking of the supposedly "armed caravan". Once they take up arms, and storm a border, they are not civilians in any stretch of the imagination.

        No, I don't think even the ideal outcome, from that perspective, justifies the cost, financially, and especially in the lives that would likely be lost.

        Well, just throwing open the border at this time is going to make a mockery of legal immigration for all time. I happen to believe that there is a concerted effort to "take back" territories that broke away from Mexican rule before becoming sovereign US States. Besides, our military slash national guard has more "less than lethal" options than we know about. I suspect these will be employed against this first caravan, and that is what I hope happens.

        "We" are not worth more than "them". Folks is folks, pretty much wherever you are in the world.

        This is true, and I hope Zero lives are lost. There are plans for housing and feeding these folks, just south of the border. The true blam lies in the hands of the "organizers" who have urged, cajoled, and funded these poor people to start a mass Exodus that will certainly end in disappointment. I have read that Maduro and groups supporting him have been behind this. Need more info on that assertion...

        [-]
         6 years ago 

        your proposals would be an excellent post in and of themselves

        $0.00
          Reply