View Single Post
Old 03-08-2011, 02:28 PM   #3
rank sentamentalist
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: goodbyecruelworld
Posts: 16,955
Default Re: What America was built on, Vs what it's been replaced with.

let's dissect, shall we?

The purpose of the US constitution is not to provide rights to the citizen.
it's ONLY to provide rights to the citizen. the CITIZEN is what Jefferson and Madison and Adams and Franklin had in mind! but i understand this was probably somewhat of a miswording. the citizen is all that matters, and based on what i know of your ideology, that should be as concrete as any political statement

let me rebut your argument in favor of capitalism and against government regulation, because i desperately want to be taken seriously in this matter.

first off, i think declaring that "the people were passionate in their belief of personal freedom and privacy" is more than a fallacy, and doesn't quite tell the whole story. i don't think the PEOPLE, as in collective Americans circa 1787, were rights slaves who believed wholeheartedly and unforgivably in a government that protected individual freedom. rather, i think more accurately, that citizens of that age were interested in WHAT WAS FAIR. the taxes that were collected by the Crown but remained completely unpaid to American workers were totally unfair. taxes being paid to the government, to be redistributed (oooooh, scary word) to the general population under reasonable disparagement makes perfect sense to me, in the context of the American revolution. to understand the wording of the American Constitution any differently is to me, at least, total revisionary history.

so how about the constitution. you specifically mention that certain folks believe the constitution is 'outdated'. forgive my insolence, but i can only assume that this is an issue raised most specifically at me, since i'm the only one with whom you've discussed the absolute interpretation of the constitution (and with whom, i may politely add, i haven't had the satisfaction of hearing a response from my latest rebuttal). the constitution, once more, IS a document dated to 1787, and therefore, should be UNDERSTOOD in the context of 1987. if it isn't, it should be taken as the absolute word of God, which regards the only circumstance under which documents shouldn't be contextualized. so, uhh, good luck with that.

by destroying incentives to work
with a smithian understanding of capitalism, incentives are still very meaningful.

and raising taxes for the entire country to pay for these entitlement programs
the majority of which help countless Americans.

i won't add anything to your further rants against the Fed and in favour of standardized currency. in a global economy, a part of which the United States just so -happens- to play the LARGEST part, a material standard is horribly impractical. this is common sense.

let me play out a hypothetical with you, for fun. you argue in favour of the gold standard. my question to you is thus: should that gold standard continue to be understood as the basis of the American economy, even as the population continues to grow? at what point do even Austrian schooled economists realize that there flat-out isn't enough gold under American control to warrant an economy built on its very standard? i do believe your most hated Keynesian economists believe that tbat very threshold was surpassed long ago, and since then, the American global economy has grown to such a vast size that using a concrete material as a standard, unless it's plastic, is flat out no longer feasible. this is the modern contention. if you believe it to be wrong, at what point does the American economy surpass material standard maximums? i can only imagine it would have to be at some point, assuming economic growth, which rarely fails.

i'll leave alone your contention that the dollar is automatically worth more, as a result of increased printing. there are some things wrong with that argument that i don't have the expertise to argue against. nevertheless, i do agree with you that the over-printing of money is incredibly dangerous. for examples, see every hyperinflated economy of recent history. however, i do believe that you're overstating America's abuse of this practice. it is a problem, but not nearly the sized problem you seem to argue. it ISNT the main economic problem of the United States, which would be in an economic disaster, even if it has printed millions less over the last year.

edit: bear in mind for every point that i was drunk as i typed everything in this post
RidonKs is offline   Reply With Quote