(Re)Writing a New Constitution

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
*sigh*

in the interest of the general public good.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the worst terms in the history of the world..... The greater good in your opinion or mine? How about in Adolf Hitler's opinion?

Hitler's vision of the greater good for Germany didn't work out too well for a lot of people.

These words are the biggest flaw in the US Constitution, and have allowed the exponential growth of the govt into the monster it is today.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't trial by jury of the nobleman's peers? What's your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

that's the point, they got a preferential system of justice not available tothe common man.

[mwalsh2020]

this OP was either a massive level (unlikely) or well-intentioned but very poorly executed. Fortunately, some good dialog on what our country should or should not be has resulted from it.

In response to the OP asking what type of ideology he is describing... it seems to me that he is ironically employing a powerful state apparatus in order to ensure that a powerful state apparatus never emerges. Unfortunately, its not the sort of delightful paradox that works. If you want the government to protect the free market, you simply do not encroach on the free market.

Milton Friedman, in his book Free to Choose, said that if he had to choose between a government monopoly or a private monopoly he'd choose the private one, and he actually questioned if such a thing could really exist, as in a free market, there will always be competition.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't trial by jury of the nobleman's peers? What's your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

that's the point, they got a preferential system of justice not available tothe common man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you document when the last time was that the common man wasn't entitled to a jury trial in England when he was accused of a crime?

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want the government to protect the free market, you simply do not encroach on the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where’s the freedom in allowing monopolies to run rampant in the absence of government anti-trust regulation?

Where’s the freedom in making factory or mine workers wage slaves because we don’t have enough jobs to go around and employers won’t provide fair wages or safe working conditions on their own free will?

Where’s the freedom in letting fraudulent and unsafe products reach the market because we cannot let the government regulate the free market?

Since the 1st Wal-Mart opened where I live in 1987 my local retail market has lost something like 15 other retail stores that sold some or all of Wal-Mart's product lines. This isn't competition; it's predation. As a consequence my freedom as a consumer has decreased while my cost as a consumer has increased.

If you value freedom you should be as opposed to central economic planning from Wall Street as you are from Pennsylvania Avenue.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you want the government to protect the free market, you simply do not encroach on the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where’s the freedom in allowing monopolies to run rampant in the absence of government anti-trust regulation?

Where’s the freedom in making factory or mine workers wage slaves because we don’t have enough jobs to go around and employers won’t provide fair wages or safe working conditions on their own free will?

Where’s the freedom in letting fraudulent and unsafe products reach the market because we cannot let the government regulate the free market?

Since the 1st Wal-Mart opened where I live in 1987 my local retail market has lost something like 15 other retail stores that sold some or all of Wal-Mart's product lines. This isn't competition; it's predation. As a consequence my freedom as a consumer has decreased while my cost as a consumer has increased.

If you value freedom you should be as opposed to central economic planning from Wall Street as you are from Pennsylvania Avenue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is a complete mess, but I'd sure like to see how Wal-Mart has increased your costs, given that is a quantifiable fact that most people that shop at Wal-Mart vice other stores have significant decrease in their living costs.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you document when the last time was that the common man wasn't entitled to a jury trial in England when he was accused of a crime?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I misread your last post a bit. what I meant was that until 1950 or so a nobleman got preferential treatment, his own court system. if you can't see how this is is unamerican (all men are created equal, eg, no people better than others by accident of birth of nobility) , then I don't know what to tell you. by saying it is a jury of his peers then you are saying that noblemen are intrinsically better than the common man, which is unamerican.

It's like saying if you're super rich you get a jury of your immediate family, otherwise you get strangers. fair?

[flaja]

Deleted

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
this OP was either a massive level (unlikely) or well-intentioned but very poorly executed. Fortunately, some good dialog on what our country should or should not be has resulted from it.

In response to the OP asking what type of ideology he is describing... it seems to me that he is ironically employing a powerful state apparatus in order to ensure that a powerful state apparatus never emerges. Unfortunately, its not the sort of delightful paradox that works. If you want the government to protect the free market, you simply do not encroach on the free market.

Milton Friedman, in his book Free to Choose, said that if he had to choose between a government monopoly or a private monopoly he'd choose the private one, and he actually questioned if such a thing could really exist, as in a free market, there will always be competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole idea is to increase competition. What about my post would not serve to increase competition? Yes, I'm taking away the freedom to have a media monopoly (and use it to gain a political monopoly) but I'm not regulating what can be said, making equal time provisions or any of the like. I'm preventing a single person from being able to "buy" an election...that's true.

We have more of a plutocracy in this country now rather than a truly representative republic. I mean, you don't see many non-statists in Congress or the executive.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you want the government to protect the free market, you simply do not encroach on the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where’s the freedom in allowing monopolies to run rampant in the absence of government anti-trust regulation?

Where’s the freedom in making factory or mine workers wage slaves because we don’t have enough jobs to go around and employers won’t provide fair wages or safe working conditions on their own free will?

Where’s the freedom in letting fraudulent and unsafe products reach the market because we cannot let the government regulate the free market?

Since the 1st Wal-Mart opened where I live in 1987 my local retail market has lost something like 15 other retail stores that sold some or all of Wal-Mart's product lines. This isn't competition; it's predation. As a consequence my freedom as a consumer has decreased while my cost as a consumer has increased.

If you value freedom you should be as opposed to central economic planning from Wall Street as you are from Pennsylvania Avenue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is a complete mess,

[/ QUOTE ]

Only to a complete imbecile, which is what you must be if you cannot see how Wal-Mart's price increases in the wake of loss of competition doesn’t lead to my loss of freedom as a consumer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a good troll, I'll give you that. Apparently you didnt make it past the first sentence of my succinct post.