Bloody american goverment

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ June 04 2002,16:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that last part should be the benchmark, dont you? <span id='postcolor'>

I don't know. You still don't have the metric system.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And how could America emulate a revolutin that hadnt even happened yet?<span id='postcolor'>

Not the revolution mate, but the ideas. Both the French and American post-revolution constitutions are a carbon copy of Rousseau's "Social Contract" that was written in 1762. And Rousseau was French

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ June 04 2002,16:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why do you think that there is a possibility of a US collapse?<span id='postcolor'>

[Tex -USMC- 0]

hehe, as long as he keeps that book by his side and open often, we should do okay

Give me a bit to find and read this social contract of yours... then we will see. Oh yes, we shall see...

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay... that made zero sense. The US is the wealthiest nation in the world, with the strongest military, not to mention we have more nuclear weapons than anyone else. There are no signs of violent unrest within our borders, and no enemies capable of doing much more than really pissing us off.

Why do you think that there is a possibility of a US collapse?<span id='postcolor'>

Well, a national collapse dont have to involve military or violence you know, and I thried to define it rather as a 'radical change'.

I'm not really well enough into the fancy words and concepts necessary to really argue for what I really mean, its rather at strong feeling (and my definition of a 'feeling' is a abstract concept involving thousands words and concepts in a unclear order) I have that I cant disregard from.

Lets hope I'm wrong!

But non the less this kind of discussions is very crucial at this time (for all humans on this planet), you said yourself that you had a feeling that something is wrong here, and would like to find out what; the only concrete answer I can give you on that is that very much are a little 'wrong'.

USA leads the western world, and the western world is built on illusions. When the illusions collapse, so do the western world as we know it today - all for the best for everyone at the end I'm sure though......

I'm sorry if it makes no sense, but I have a really hard time writing 'concrete' things, they are most often completely pointless; so I go on trying to explain (and refine) my abstract thoughts.  

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 04 2002,14:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm. I just read my post. I don't know why I always end up sounding like a Marxist-Leninist in this forum. I am in reallity a liberal. I believe in market economy and so on...

Hmm.. I guess that I just like picking fights too much <span id='postcolor'>

they seem same to me!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Dude, Denoir, you are so wrong, its not even funny. Rousseau is a socialist (just like you ) and his ideas do not mesh with the principles that the US was founded on. For example, and I quote: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">SOVEREIGNTY, for the same reason as makes it inalienable, is indivisible; for will either is, or is not, general;6 it is the will either of the body of the people, or only of a part of it. In the first case, the will, when declared, is an act of Sovereignty and constitutes law: in the second, it is merely a particular will, or act of magistracy — at the most a decree.

But our political theorists, unable to divide Sovereignty in principle, divide it according to its object: into force and will; into legislative power and executive power; into rights of taxation, justice and war; into internal administration and power of foreign treaty. Sometimes they confuse all these sections, and sometimes they distinguish them; they turn the Sovereign into a fantastic being composed of several connected pieces: it is as if they were making man of several bodies, one with eyes, one with arms, another with feet, and each with nothing besides. We are told that the jugglers of Japan dismember a child before the eyes of the spectators; then they throw all the members into the air one after another, and the child falls down alive and whole. The conjuring tricks of our political theorists are very like that; they first dismember the Body politic by an illusion worthy of a fair, and then join it together again we know not how.

<span id='postcolor'> This runs at obvious odds to the US's idea of seperation of powers first at the state and federal levels, and second at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches. The US did this basing their assumptions that if part of the government goes against the will of the people, the other part can hold it in check. Rousseau on the other hand held faith in undivided sovereignty- even though he also wanted a collective sovereignty- call it a grand senate, that was judge, jury, and executionary, if you want to be cynical about it.

Second, Rousseau is a stone cold socialist: communes, limitation of wealth, the whole 9 yards. This runs at direct odds with the USs ideas of unimpeded commerce. Once again, I quote: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EACH member of the community gives himself to it, at the moment of its foundation, just as he is, with all the resources at his command, including the goods he possesses. This act does not make possession, in changing hands, change its nature, and become property in the hands of the Sovereign; but, as the forces of the city are incomparably greater than those of an individual, public possession is also, in fact, stronger and more irrevocable, without being any more legitimate, at any rate from the point of view of foreigners. For the State, in relation to its members, is master of all their goods by the social contract, which, within the State, is the basis of all rights; but, in relation to other powers, it is so only by the right of the first occupier, which it holds from its members.

The right of the first occupier, though more real than the right of the strongest, becomes a real right only when the right of property has already been established. Every man has naturally a right to everything he needs; but the positive act which makes him proprietor of one thing excludes him from everything else. Having his share, he ought to keep to it, and can have no further right against the community. This is why the right of the first occupier, which in the state of nature is so weak, claims the respect of every man in civil society. In this right we are respecting not so much what belongs to another as what does not belong to ourselves.

<span id='postcolor'> In case you dont want to read that, let me condense it. In the first paragraph, Rousseau states that the right to property of the Sovereign (presumably the "people" or a facsimile thereof) supercedes the right of the individual to property, without having anymore legitimacy ( a bit of legalese which means the Sovereign cant right out steal the individuals property, just borrow it). In the second paragraph, He talks about how every man has a right to what he needs, no more. And in respecting other peoples rights to what they need, we affirm our own right to it in some socialistic form of the Golden Rule.

These ideas run straightly against the concept of a free market, laissez faire economics, and capitalism in general, all of which are facets of the American ethos.

These are only a very few of the contradictions between Rousseaus Social Contract and Americas constitution. Now, you are absolutely correct in saying that the French revolution and Constitution are almost carbon copies of the Contract. However Denoir, you are dead wrong to say that the American Constitution was based on the Contract. Im telling you, it was much more heavily based on the writings of John Locke. Check him out, and you will see what I mean. You will probably hate him, as he is into people making money, accumulating profits, and whatnot

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ June 04 2002,16:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, a national collapse dont have to involve military or violence you know, and I thried to define it rather as a 'radical change'.

I'm not really well enough into the fancy words and concepts necessary to really argue for what I really mean, its rather at strong feeling (and my definition of a 'feeling' is a abstract concept involving thousands words and concepts in a unclear order) I have that I cant disregard from.

Lets hope I'm wrong!

But non the less this kind of discussions is very crucial at this time (for all humans on this planet), you said yourself that you had a feeling that something is wrong here, and would like to find out what; the only concrete answer I can give you on that is that very much are a little 'wrong'.

USA leads the western world, and the western world is built on illusions. When the illusions collapse, so do the western world as we know it today - all for the best for everyone at the end I'm sure though......

I'm sorry if it makes no sense, but I have a really hard time writing 'concrete' things, they are most often completely pointless; so I go on trying to explain (and refine) my abstract thoughts.  <span id='postcolor'>

Well, I dont know. The thing is, usually there has to be some kind of unrest for people to do something radical. If you havent noticed, when people are happy, they are very much like cows, docile, and completely willing to go along with almost anything you have in mind. There is never a popular uprising when the people are happy with the status quo, because they like the way things are.

And when I said I knew something is wrong, I didnt mean anything like a foretelling impending doom, more like a feeling like a general perception of the world by Americans has changed, or something like that. Still not sure. But I would have to say that of all possible out comes in the near future, radical change or popular uprisings in America are two of the least likely things. Id bet on a nuclear war somewhere in the world before something like what you are suggesting happens

Edit: If you have problems itterating your ideas, I suggest reading all the usual philosophes Rousseau, Descartes, Voltaire, Locke, etc, and chances are you will find someone you agree with completely, or several people you agree with partially. This will give you a foundation and a springboard for enhancing your own outlook on all the usual deep questions: Why are we here? What is the meaning of Life? Where did I put my remote control? etc. I would also reccomend reading some Douglas Adams books

[Guest]

Hobbes, Locke, and  Rousseau each developed differing versions of the social contract, but all agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for society's protection and that the government has definite responsibilities to its citizens. Similar ideas were used in the 18th cent. as justification for both the American and the French revolutions.

The point lies in that the goverment has certain responsibilities towards it's citizens (basically rights).

I was not talking about practical implementation or economics.

As for the economic model the US uses - it is much more Adam Smith then Locke. The whole idea of laissez faire was Smith's. Locke would be turning in his grave if he heard that he was associated with something like that. Locke was utilitarian with his views similar to John Stuart Mill.

The laissez faire system that the US is so fond of goes against the idea of a general good as a goal.

Edit: I have just looked at the US constitution for the first time. I admit that I had a whole different idea of what was in there. Man, this thing is really bad. You have your political system hardcoded into an unchangable set of laws. What were the authors of that document thinking???

I always thought that the constitution just regulated freedom of speech, movement, ownership and so on... but no! You have hardcoded all the political structures!

One example of why it is bad: A two chamber parlamentary system (Congress+Senate) has no real point today. Most countries in the world are removing them or reducing the significance of the senate to be replaced by direct democratic representation. You can't do that, can you?

Edit2: I am not a socialist I am a utilitarian liberal!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

yeah, but dont dodge the issue at hand lol. You said that Rousseaus Social Contract was basically the same as America's Constitution. I proved you wrong. I win. Admit it! Go on, say uncle! say it!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ June 04 2002,17:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeah, but dont dodge the issue at hand lol. You said that Rousseaus Social Contract was basically the same as America's Constitution. I proved you wrong. I win. Admit it!    Go on, say uncle! say it!          <span id='postcolor'>

read my edit!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

ooh you slippery bastard

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ June 04 2002,17:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ooh you slippery bastard  <span id='postcolor'>

No, but if it makes you happier... I *was* wrong. I had an entirely wrong picture of the US constitution.

I thought that it was about general rights.. but it was far far worse then i thought. Poor you

[Tex -USMC- 0]

lmao, if you would believe it, the Constitution is one of the oldest parts of the government, and it needs the least fixing of anything. Too bad your utilitarian liberal quasi-socialist views put you in the position of criticizing a system that is so perversley successful

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 04 2002,17:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, but if it makes you happier... I *was* wrong. I had an entirely wrong picture of the US constitution. <span id='postcolor'>

Forgot to add: Victory!!! hell yeah! I didnt write a small novel in vain, it seems

[Guest]

Yes, ultra-successful if you mean that it allows things like slavery and McCarthyism.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ June 04 2002,17:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I didnt write a small novel in vain, it seems  <span id='postcolor'>

No, not at all. I learned a lot about the US Constitution, motivated by your post. Not that it is neccessarily a thing that makes me like the American system more

[WKK Gimbal 0]

Then why all the white-outs in the constitution?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 04 2002,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, ultra-successful if you mean that it allows things like slavery and McCarthyism. <span id='postcolor'>

Slavery and the concept of the witch hunt were around before the constitution. The difference, is that we ended one for good, and we discredited and stopped the other, but I imagine that it will be back sometime

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 04 2002,17:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the economic model the US uses - it is much more Adam Smith then Locke. The whole idea of laissez faire was Smith's. Locke would be turning in his grave if he heard that he was associated with something like that. Locke was utilitarian with his views similar to John Stuart Mill.

The laissez faire system that the US is so fond of goes against the idea of a general good as a goal.

<snip>

One example of why it is bad: A two chamber parlamentary system (Congress+Senate) has no real point today. Most countries in the world are removing them or reducing the significance of the senate to be replaced by direct democratic representation. You can't do that, can you?<span id='postcolor'>

actually, in US, adam smith does not hold dominant power. up until the great depresion, laissez faire did dominate econmic philoshopy, but as soon as Keynesian theory came up , it was ignored until early 80s or even 90s. it's been only a few years that laissez faire has been able to breathe more.

and actually, laissez faire is the first step to general welfare. by having everyone choose what they want through supply and demand, each individual is capable of holding what they want. by this way, maximum welfare for accruded group of individual is achieved.(i'm not saying individual though)

2.on bicameral issue, I support it. it may not be the best, but sure beats unicameral. In small countries, unicameral is sufiecient, but bicameral fits better with larger political structure. if a dumb law passes one, there's always check and balance that can happen b4 it reaches finall checks and balance structure of judicial, executive and legislative branch.

a good example would be senate nixing a law proposal that is so absurd, yet due to sheer numbers of a party members in democraticaly chosen house of representatives, was able to survive.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 04 2002,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and actually, laissez faire is the first step to general welfare. by having everyone choose what they want through supply and demand, each individual is capable of holding what they want. by this way, maximum welfare for accruded group of individual is achieved.(i'm not saying individual though)<span id='postcolor'>

That's an interesting point of view. I entirely disagree!

Laissez faire is the most extreme form of market economy. The government is more or less absent and the progress is measured as the sum of self-serving acts. With laissez faire you only help yourself and not others. It is up to each individual to survive for themselves.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

*tiptoes out of the room, closing the door behind him*

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mora2 @ June 04 2002,14:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir:

"As for real life points against Bush's incopetence"

" Look at his economical policy ("if we lower the taxes the government will get more money")."

Mmmm....i don´t really understand....do you really think increasing taxes increases incoming profits for a state?

One basic thing that i´m studying in economics is that not always increasing taxes makes you earn more money...

Of course i´m am in my first year of career and i´m not an expert....but i think this is a basic point...

For example:

If i increase taxes for ppl who earn more than a determined quantity each year i am not helping those ppl trying to increase their annual incoming sallary by producing more...ann when i say his production i am saying that production,capital,technical investigation,etc...is what´s make´s a country´s profit.

You can make some points i f you want on this, i would be very happy to know ppl´s views and knowledges on this as it interest´s me.

   <span id='postcolor'>

increasing taxes works to increase gov't revenue to certain level, but after that, it hurts. That was the theory about taxation that Reagon liked to use as why he lowered taxes. he claimed that federal gov't was taxing to much.

there;s much more to taxes than financing gov't. it keeps society live-able by curving it's economical difference. for exaple, under pure economic ideas, young and the old are not rewarded often since they are not able to produce more. that means that they have to die in some cases, which is awful. thus taxes are used to suppliment them. so bsiaclly, use of tax is to even-out living standards

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 04 2002,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2.on bicameral issue, I support it. it may not be the best, but sure beats unicameral. In small countries, unicameral is sufiecient, but bicameral fits better with larger political structure. if a dumb law passes one, there's always check and balance that can happen b4 it reaches finall checks and balance structure of judicial, executive and legislative branch.

a good example would be senate nixing a law proposal that is so absurd, yet due to sheer numbers of a party members in democraticaly chosen house of representatives, was able to survive.<span id='postcolor'>

Who's to judge if it is absurd? The bicameral system made sense before when there was considerable difference between the different regions in the country. Today, with global communication and a stardardized product market, it doesn't make any sense.

Of course to have a unicameral system that works, you should have more then two large political parties. For me that makes more sense. The direct vote for president doesn't make too much sense. Personal votes work in small groups, when you know the person in question. On a country scale you should vote on issues not personality.

Therefor IMO a good democratic system today is a unicameral parliamentary representative democracy. Have several parties and let them choose their leaders. Again, political issues are relevant, not the persons behind them.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 04 2002,18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 04 2002,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and actually, laissez faire is the first step to general welfare. by having everyone choose what they want through supply and demand, each individual is capable of holding what they want. by this way, maximum welfare for accruded group of individual is achieved.(i'm not saying individual though)<span id='postcolor'>

That's an interesting point of view. I entirely disagree!

Laissez faire is the most extreme form of market economy. The government is more or less absent and the progress is measured as the sum of self-serving acts. With laissez faire you only help yourself and not others. It is up to each individual to survive for themselves.<span id='postcolor'>

i had feeling that you'd get that paragraph and shove a RPG into it

i'll focus on your last two sentences for now(got a headache).

first, if you, a baker, makes a bread costing you 10 francs and i am willing to buy it at market price(and afford it too), then a transaction is made. let's assume that market clearing price is 15 francs. then you get 5 francs of profit for a loaf of bread and i get satisfaction of my stomach for paying that much(15 francs). sum of my satisfaction and your satisfaction is now greater than us relying on some arbitrary price made by gov't, like 10 francs.

in that case, I enjoy that 10franc bread while I would have paid 15, since i have more, my marginal satisfaction of consumption from bread is reduced, while your marginal satisfaction goes down since you don't make any profit, and that dissatisfaction goes much bigger than my increase in satisfaction. thus, over all(u and I combined) general welfare goes down.

that's why economics is so misunderstood. it should be about efficiency and increasing welfare for the most, but sometimes in application to real life, things get leftout due to restriction of RL.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">that's why economics is so misunderstood. it should be about efficiency and increasing welfare for the most, but sometimes in application to real life, things get leftout due to restriction of RL.<span id='postcolor'>

Ralph my man, you're describing socialism!!

Laissez Faire Capitalism is about everything BUT increasing the welfare of everyone. It's about making money. As much money as you can. No matter who you stomp/screw/exploit. With a true laissez faire system, you will end up with no middle class at all.

In the US, only taxation and unionization has kept that from happening. Trade Unionism is about the only thing that created the great 'middle class' in the United States in the early to mid 20th century.