R.I.P. U.S. Constitution

[krusen]

I'm guessing you don't truly understand what you're talking about. There is a lot more wealth available to help the poor and feed the needy under a capitalist system. While Canada is slightly more socialistic than the US, their economy (as well as the majority of other countries including the communist ones) uses capitalism. If you engage in trade, you're engaging in capitalism. Sweden is very socialistic, and it works out for them (for now), however, their society is much more cohesive than ours. Deadbeats ususlly get harassed by their friends and neighbors. Despite the problem of human laziness, there is a bigger issue. How do the central planners determine the correct price for a resource without the market pricing mechanism? It's nearly impossible, and leads to all sorts of problems. Here's a short white paper on that subject.
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~rpm213/files/Calc.pdf

A book I highly recommend is "The Road to Serfdom" by F. A. Hayek. One of the main lessons is that in order to have a socialist system, much of the power must be centralized. This leads inevitably to a dictatorship. If you have even a minor knowledge of history, you will see that this is correct.

Another great book by a 17th century French Philosopher, Frederic Bastiat, is called "The Law" This is much the same libertarian thinking our forefathers agreed with.
Laws are put in place to keep one man from taking another's property. A man has a right to defend his property. A group of men has a right to defend their collective property. Where one man cannot take property from another, it is also wrong for a group of men to take property from another group of men. Charity is great, charity by force of the state is theft.

[Frank Delicious]

Woah if we centralize power we might end up with a corrupt govt where big businesses can buy off a few politicians and run the country...oh.

p.s sorry you can't debate without insulting the person you are talking to.


I'm prob gonna stop posting in this thread b/c I hate talking politics on a DG board and it ended very badly last time.

[krusen]

Sarcasm detected. Yes it's fucked up the way it is here and now. That is becasue of crony capitalism or corporatism which has worked it's way in under two party (no choice) rule, not pure capitalism. To condense my view, the USSR was much worse.

I didn't mean to come off as insulting. Just trying to gauge where you're coming from (level of knowledge of the subject). Capitalism gets a lot of bad press it doesn't deserve (any excuse to introduce more intervention and centralize power even further), and if you're basing your views on that, IMHO you have been misled. I'm truly sorry to put you off since I was hoping that you could learn a bit here to correct what I see as a skewed outlook on your part. Agree to disagree I guess. This is drifting from topic anyway (like it matters).

[Leopard]

I'm prob gonna stop posting in this thread b/c I hate talking politics on a DG board and it ended very badly last time.

I'd say it was a successful ending, let's do it all again.

[Dig It]

I'm guessing you don't truly understand what you're talking about. There is a lot more wealth available to help the poor and feed the needy under a capitalist system. While Canada is slightly more socialistic than the US, their economy (as well as the majority of other countries including the communist ones) uses capitalism. If you engage in trade, you're engaging in capitalism. Sweden is very socialistic, and it works out for them (for now), however, their society is much more cohesive than ours. Deadbeats ususlly get harassed by their friends and neighbors. Despite the problem of human laziness, there is a bigger issue. How do the central planners determine the correct price for a resource without the market pricing mechanism? It's nearly impossible, and leads to all sorts of problems. Here's a short white paper on that subject.
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~rpm213/files/Calc.pdf

A book I highly recommend is "The Road to Serfdom" by F. A. Hayek. One of the main lessons is that in order to have a socialist system, much of the power must be centralized. This leads inevitably to a dictatorship. If you have even a minor knowledge of history, you will see that this is correct.

Another great book by a 17th century French Philosopher, Frederic Bastiat, is called "The Law" This is much the same libertarian thinking our forefathers agreed with.
Laws are put in place to keep one man from taking another's property. A man has a right to defend his property. A group of men has a right to defend their collective property. Where one man cannot take property from another, it is also wrong for a group of men to take property from another group of men. Charity is great, charity by force of the state is theft.

How do you square the fact you say our forefathers are against allocating tax dollars to help with social programs when Benjamin Franklin (mostly) started the first Hospital that used tax dollars to help the poor?

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/paharc/timeline/1751/

On May 11, 1751, a charter is granted by the Pennsylvania legislature to establish a hospital to care for the sick-poor and insane who wander the streets of Philadelphia. The story of the Good Samaritan is chosen by Franklin and Bond as the official seal, and "Take Care of Him and I will repay Thee" ushers in a new attitude of social responsibility.

Sounds to me like our forefathers knew about social responsibility well ahead of the curve so I am wondering your take as you said they were the antithesis of socialism.

[Apothecary]

neither capitalism nor socialism are explicitly ingrained in the constitution.

please start your own thread on this topic if youd like to discuss this (as the nazi mods of dgr insist).

[Dig It]

neither capitalism nor socialism are explicitly ingrained in the constitution.

please start your own thread on this topic if youd like to discuss this (as the nazi mods of dgr insist).

Say word son.

[Frank Delicious]

Us mod's just got Godwined

[Dogma]

neither capitalism nor socialism are explicitly ingrained in the constitution.

Neither is the separation of church and state.

[Frank Delicious]

I read it in a letter one of the founding father's wrote once though. That's like the constitution.

[Dogma]

I read it in a letter one of the founding father's wrote once though. That's like the constitution.

Quit giving away the punchline, Frank.

[Frank Delicious]

I ruin everything!

[Apothecary]

that letter...200+ years of judicial review....whatever.

[Frank Delicious]

But I thought we were talking about things in the constitution and how they have been violated. Not something that is not in it but held up in the courts.

[Apothecary]

the courts have ruled that separation of church and state are enshrined in the constitution/bill of rights. the highest judges in this country say that is a cornerstone of amurikn government.

are you suggesting theyre wrong?