(Re)Writing a New Constitution

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, the old "predatory pricing" boogeyman.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you really saying that they don't engage in predatory pricing? Nice ad hominem with the boogeyman, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that an ad hominem?

[/ QUOTE ]

A "boogeyman" is a false monster...the monster under the bed. You seem to have said that they don't engage in predatory pricing...that it [Wal-Mart's predatory pricing] is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, you don't know what an ad hominem is.

[flaja]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see it as a separate system. I see it as trial by a peer jury. We can have the same kind of conflict today in the U.S. when it becomes necessary to try a minority defendant- can a jury of one race be a peer jury for a defendant of another race?

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider the jury that railroaded Martha Stewart- it included a member that was a perjurer, a woman-hater and a petty thief. But Stewart's conviction still stands even though the courts have previously ruled that such a juror would negate a defendant's conviction.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
Deleted

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t accept any board that is ostensibly open to the public but doesn’t allow freedom of speech. I won’t waste anymore of time here.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, what is the point of limiting the powers of the federal government if it is empowered to do anything it deems as insuring the general welfare??? This is why I think the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause are better regarded narrowly.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not intimately familiar with US politics, but I'm under the impression that the federal government can bring significant pressure on the states by withholding funding from federal tax revenue. This effectively enables them to gain a lot of power regardless of how the Supreme Court decides on the Commerce Clause.

Unless the states have constitutional power to censure the federal government, unbounded central revenue raising raising is always going to lead to centralization of power.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Deleted

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t accept any board that is ostensibly open to the public but doesn’t allow freedom of speech. I won’t waste anymore of time here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your understanding of freedom of speech is about as good as your understanding of history.

(Hint: 2+2 is a private organization, not a government agency)

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, what is the point of limiting the powers of the federal government if it is empowered to do anything it deems as insuring the general welfare??? This is why I think the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause are better regarded narrowly.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not intimately familiar with US politics, but I'm under the impression that the federal government can bring significant pressure on the states by withholding funding from federal tax revenue. This effectively enables them to gain a lot of power regardless of how the Supreme Court decides on the Commerce Clause.

Unless the states have constitutional power to censure the federal government, unbounded central revenue raising raising is always going to lead to centralization of power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, and IMO that should be changed somehow.

[natedogg]

I think this is teh awesome. He wants to ban volume discounts in his constitution. That may be one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this forum, right next to banning low fat milk.

natedogg

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
That may be one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this forum

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's not get carried away now.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is teh awesome. He wants to ban volume discounts in his constitution. That may be one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this forum, right next to banning low fat milk.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

It was just an idea, maybe it is stupid and won't work.

1) How would you keep big business from oppressing innovation and new ideas?

2) How would you reposition America as the innovative leader that we saw throughout most of the 20th century?

3) If volume discounts were illegal, how would this hurt or destroy the economy?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
1) How would you keep big business from oppressing innovation and new ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Remove the apparatus used to oppress innovation and new ideas (e.g. patents)

[ QUOTE ]
2) How would you reposition America as the innovative leader that we saw throughout most of the 20th century?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get the [censored] out of the way.

[ QUOTE ]
3) If volume discounts were illegal, how would this hurt or destroy the economy?

[/ QUOTE ]

People would pay a lot more for [censored]. This would drastically change the allocation of resources since allocation could not be as efficient as it would otherwise.

There are more important reasons to oppose such a regulation, of course.