Left Vs. Right - Do We Have Irreconcilable Differences?

[Fern]

Left Vs. Right - Do We Have Irreconcilable Differences?

Of course we do.

However, our Founding Fathers had a solution: Limited federal government and allowing the states to wield the power. In that way everyone, liberal or conservative, could basically go their own way. A"live and let live" thing. If you didn't like the way your state treated things, you could just move to another state more to your liking.

However, that model has been turned on it's head; the federal government has virtually all the power. There is very little 'experimentation' with government etc at the state level anymore. The SCOTUS has used the Interstate Commerce Clause to crush states' rights IMO.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: jbourne77
It's interesting that you bring this up, as I was just discussing this with my students a few days ago. I'm teaching an Operations Research course this semester and I was discussing Linear Programming. For those of you unfamiliar, in a nutshell, it's one way (of many) to mathematically model a problem in order to find an optimal solution. You basically define your variables, then constraints, then you define the objective which is subject to those constraints. When properly defined, you end up with an enclosed area bound by a line representing each constraint, and your objective "pushes" you to a vertex of this area, with the idea being that said vertex is your optimal solution.

One student had the idea of trying model best-outcomes for government policies. Realistically speaking, the notion is absurd, but it spawned some very interesting discussion, especially when people started considering the constraints that we would need to impose. It quickly became apparent that it would be impossible to define any constraints without creating an invalid model (one with no enclosed area caused by conflicting constraints).

Of course, our discussion was an awful simplification of one of humanity's most complex problems, made even more complex by differing values, agendas, and priorities. Regardless, it was fun to talk about. I continued reflecting on this for a couple days. Finally I realized that I can't even reconcile several of MY OWN ideas... how the hell can it be possible for our government or society to make any inroads whatsoever.

Political agreement is impossible, for many of us cannot even agree with ourselves. The notion that we can convince someone else of our position is downright hysterical, even if you remove the element of ego.

How about, instead of possibly being trapped by the need for a perfect solution, we content ourselves with one that generally models some broad ranged consensus, with the emphasis on contentment. The Buddha seems to be happy not because he has solutions but because contentment eliminates the need for them.

Well, LP doesn't go after the "perfect" solution... it goes after the most "optimal." The idea being that the "perfect" solution (one not bound by constraints) is unreachable. In our case, the "optimal" solution is the one that yields the most contentment.

Perhaps then one needs content onself with less than optimal contentment.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DukeN
There are no irreconciliable differences, just political posturing and greed.

This. Other than the extremists on both sides I believe that most people want to improve the world around them. They just have a different view of how to improve the world. Any animosity between the sides is purely ego, trying to enforce the idea that there is only one right way and that is their way.

Politics is a lot like religion in that sense. At least with the right they're obviously religious and defend their ideas with the same fervor. The same defense can't be made of the left, who love to talk about the separation of church and state when in fact their religion IS the state.

Your attempt at politially correct partisanship fails, let me spin it the other way for you

At least the left is socially concious and truely cares about their fellow man. The same can't be said of the right, who love to talk about religion when in fact their religion IS greed and the relentless pursuit of putting themselves above their fellow man.

You fail, too: not everyone on the right is religious. All but a few in my family are right-leaning, but aside from my wife, none are religious. Anecdotal, yes, but enough to stomp a mud hole in your "the right loves to talk about religion." Hell, most conservatives I know would prefer to leave religion as far from the debate as possible. Like BoberFett said, there are extremists on both sides. The religious zealots of the right are the conservatives' extremists.

Also, many conservatives believe in "tough love." It's not about "putting themselves above their fellow man," but rather incentivizing their fellow man to be self-sufficient rather than reliant on a predatory, broken system.

 

[totalnoob]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

At least the left is socially concious and truely cares about their fellow man. The same can't be said of the right, who love to talk about religion when in fact their religion IS greed and the relentless pursuit of putting themselves above their fellow man.

We all care about our "fellow man". Those on the right (economically) recognize that the best way to improve the plight of our "fellow man" is to maximize individual freedom and minimize the burden of the state. We have the same goal, but the left believes an oppressive/redistributionist economic policy is the way to go. Needless to say, they are wrong..and those advocating it are tyrannical assholes at heart.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Left Vs. Right - Do We Have Irreconcilable Differences?

Of course we do.

However, our Founding Fathers had a solution: Limited federal government and allowing the states to wield the power. In that way everyone, liberal or conservative, could basically go their own way. A"live and let live" thing. If you didn't like the way your state treated things, you could just move to another state more to your liking.

However, that model has been turned on it's head; the federal government has virtually all the power. There is very little 'experimentation' with government etc at the state level anymore. The SCOTUS has used the Interstate Commerce Clause to crush states' rights IMO.

Fern

I don't think that states' rights were the founding fathers' recipe for papering over irreconcilable differences. Not only that, but even the reddest of the red and the bluest of the blue tend to be 60-40 partisan splits at most so having the states implement these 'irreconcilable differences' would be a marginal improvement at best.

The real solution was simply the requirement of broad consensus to pass legislation. To pass your party's agenda you need to clear two legislative hurdles and one executive one. That pretty much works to ensure that the policies being passed are likely to be ones that a significant majority supports. The only reason the right is feeling so aggrieved right now is because the left has scored such overwhelming electoral victories recently that the conservative representation in government has been reduced to a rump.

While this makes some people in the country mad, I imagine the founding fathers would shrug at this, it's what the people voted for after all.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: jbourne77
It's interesting that you bring this up, as I was just discussing this with my students a few days ago. I'm teaching an Operations Research course this semester and I was discussing Linear Programming. For those of you unfamiliar, in a nutshell, it's one way (of many) to mathematically model a problem in order to find an optimal solution. You basically define your variables, then constraints, then you define the objective which is subject to those constraints. When properly defined, you end up with an enclosed area bound by a line representing each constraint, and your objective "pushes" you to a vertex of this area, with the idea being that said vertex is your optimal solution.

One student had the idea of trying model best-outcomes for government policies. Realistically speaking, the notion is absurd, but it spawned some very interesting discussion, especially when people started considering the constraints that we would need to impose. It quickly became apparent that it would be impossible to define any constraints without creating an invalid model (one with no enclosed area caused by conflicting constraints).

Of course, our discussion was an awful simplification of one of humanity's most complex problems, made even more complex by differing values, agendas, and priorities. Regardless, it was fun to talk about. I continued reflecting on this for a couple days. Finally I realized that I can't even reconcile several of MY OWN ideas... how the hell can it be possible for our government or society to make any inroads whatsoever.

Political agreement is impossible, for many of us cannot even agree with ourselves. The notion that we can convince someone else of our position is downright hysterical, even if you remove the element of ego.

How about, instead of possibly being trapped by the need for a perfect solution, we content ourselves with one that generally models some broad ranged consensus, with the emphasis on contentment. The Buddha seems to be happy not because he has solutions but because contentment eliminates the need for them.

Well, LP doesn't go after the "perfect" solution... it goes after the most "optimal." The idea being that the "perfect" solution (one not bound by constraints) is unreachable. In our case, the "optimal" solution is the one that yields the most contentment.

Perhaps then one needs content onself with less than optimal contentment.

LOL perhaps, Moonie... perhaps :beer:

By the way, that's what we would call a circular reference. We cannot feed the result of the solution back into the problem's parameters .

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Fern

Left Vs. Right - Do We Have Irreconcilable Differences?

Of course we do.

However, our Founding Fathers had a solution: Limited federal government and allowing the states to wield the power. In that way everyone, liberal or conservative, could basically go their own way. A"live and let live" thing. If you didn't like the way your state treated things, you could just move to another state more to your liking.

However, that model has been turned on it's head; the federal government has virtually all the power. There is very little 'experimentation' with government etc at the state level anymore. The SCOTUS has used the Interstate Commerce Clause to crush states' rights IMO.

Fern

Another example of hyperbole. Which Founding Fathers were those? The Republicans believed in a limited government but the Federalists believed in a powerful federal government. Men from both sides signed the Constitution. The Federalists won the first battle with regards to the power of the federal government when Hamilton convinced Congress and Washington to enact the First Bank of the US, a power not enumerated to the federal government by the Constitution. People act as if a limited federal government was some cornerstone in the beliefs of all our Founding Fathers, it wasn't. Go read "Report on Manufactures" by Hamilton while he was the first Secretary of the Treasury. He proposed things in that report that would get him labeled a Socialist these days (which is not all that undeserved), and his name is on the Constitution.

In other words, some founding fathers had your solution, others didn't. And it wasn't just recently "turned on its head." This has been a long standing debate.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: dammitgibs
Left wants equality, right wants equal opportunity, pretty big difference I'd say.

Left wants women to have a choice, right wants to turn them into baby factories.


fun rhetorical game. who's next?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: dammitgibs
Left wants equality, right wants equal opportunity, pretty big difference I'd say.

Left wants women to have a choice, right wants to turn them into baby factories.


fun rhetorical game. who's next?

Ok, I'll play:

Left wants to kill unborn babies but save the murderers and rapists.

Can we all grow up now?

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
It's interesting that you bring this up, as I was just discussing this with my students a few days ago. I'm teaching an Operations Research course this semester and I was discussing Linear Programming. For those of you unfamiliar, in a nutshell, it's one way (of many) to mathematically model a problem in order to find an optimal solution. You basically define your variables, then constraints, then you define the objective which is subject to those constraints. When properly defined, you end up with an enclosed area bound by a line representing each constraint, and your objective "pushes" you to a vertex of this area, with the idea being that said vertex is your optimal solution.

One student had the idea of trying model best-outcomes for government policies. Realistically speaking, the notion is absurd, but it spawned some very interesting discussion, especially when people started considering the constraints that we would need to impose. It quickly became apparent that it would be impossible to define any constraints without creating an invalid model (one with no enclosed area caused by conflicting constraints).

Of course, our discussion was an awful simplification of one of humanity's most complex problems, made even more complex by differing values, agendas, and priorities. Regardless, it was fun to talk about. I continued reflecting on this for a couple days. Finally I realized that I can't even reconcile several of MY OWN ideas... how the hell can it be possible for our government or society to make any inroads whatsoever.

Political agreement is impossible, for many of us cannot even agree with ourselves. The notion that we can convince someone else of our position is downright hysterical, even if you remove the element of ego.

I've often thought of it the same way. Operations research was one one of the most fun courses I took in math. I just wish that I could have taken a course like game theory to apply in situations like this....it should be interesting.

I do agree with you about people agreeing with themselves being a problem. However, I also believe that the only reconcilable difference we have as a society is the matter in which we discuss our differences. Debate is almost a lost art in the age of sound bytes, talking points, and mindless slogans. We simply choose to plug our ears believing only we can be right, without even hearing the other side out, much less finding common ground.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I've often thought of it the same way. Operations research was one one of the most fun courses I took in math. I just wish that I could have taken a course like game theory to apply in situations like this....it should be interesting.

This is my second semester teaching it, and it is by far one of the most enjoyable courses I've taught. When I did my Econ undergrad I took a semester of Game Theory and it was by far the most interesting course I've ever taken. We have a section on GT in OR, but not nearly long enough to do it any justice. Typical Prisoner's Dilemma stuff, and then move on. But hey, I don't get to write the syllabus .

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I do agree with you about people agreeing with themselves being a problem. However, I also believe that the only reconcilable difference we have as a society is the matter in which we discuss our differences. Debate is almost a lost art in the age of sound bytes, talking points, and mindless slogans. We simply choose to plug our ears believing only we can be right, without even hearing the other side out, much less finding common ground.

This is so bloody true it's not even funny. Occassionally, you'll find someone who brings some facts and logic to the table, but either a) they muddy their own argument with personal attacks, macros/sound bytes, and/or b) their opposition responds with personal attacks, macros/sound bytes. Arguments are (perceived to be) won based on who can scream the loudest and form the largest mob.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Fern

Left Vs. Right - Do We Have Irreconcilable Differences?

Of course we do.

However, our Founding Fathers had a solution: Limited federal government and allowing the states to wield the power. In that way everyone, liberal or conservative, could basically go their own way. A"live and let live" thing. If you didn't like the way your state treated things, you could just move to another state more to your liking.

However, that model has been turned on it's head; the federal government has virtually all the power. There is very little 'experimentation' with government etc at the state level anymore. The SCOTUS has used the Interstate Commerce Clause to crush states' rights IMO.

Fern

Another example of hyperbole. Which Founding Fathers were those? The Republicans believed in a limited government but the Federalists believed in a powerful federal government. Men from both sides signed the Constitution. The Federalists won the first battle with regards to the power of the federal government when Hamilton convinced Congress and Washington to enact the First Bank of the US, a power not enumerated to the federal government by the Constitution. People act as if a limited federal government was some cornerstone in the beliefs of all our Founding Fathers, it wasn't. Go read "Report on Manufactures" by Hamilton while he was the first Secretary of the Treasury. He proposed things in that report that would get him labeled a Socialist these days (which is not all that undeserved), and his name is on the Constitution.

In other words, some founding fathers had your solution, others didn't. And it wasn't just recently "turned on its head." This has been a long standing debate.

This.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Fern

Left Vs. Right - Do We Have Irreconcilable Differences?

Of course we do.

However, our Founding Fathers had a solution: Limited federal government and allowing the states to wield the power. In that way everyone, liberal or conservative, could basically go their own way. A"live and let live" thing. If you didn't like the way your state treated things, you could just move to another state more to your liking.

However, that model has been turned on it's head; the federal government has virtually all the power. There is very little 'experimentation' with government etc at the state level anymore. The SCOTUS has used the Interstate Commerce Clause to crush states' rights IMO.

Fern

Another example of hyperbole. Which Founding Fathers were those? The Republicans believed in a limited government but the Federalists believed in a powerful federal government. Men from both sides signed the Constitution. The Federalists won the first battle with regards to the power of the federal government when Hamilton convinced Congress and Washington to enact the First Bank of the US, a power not enumerated to the federal government by the Constitution. People act as if a limited federal government was some cornerstone in the beliefs of all our Founding Fathers, it wasn't. Go read "Report on Manufactures" by Hamilton while he was the first Secretary of the Treasury. He proposed things in that report that would get him labeled a Socialist these days (which is not all that undeserved), and his name is on the Constitution.

In other words, some founding fathers had your solution, others didn't. And it wasn't just recently "turned on its head." This has been a long standing debate.

Exactly, republicans and libertarians don't know shit about american history and the founding fathers. Interesting to note, America was very distrustful of free trade back then and had extremely high tariffs because they were afraid that they would get annihilated by England in trade.

This argument is known as the infant industry argument. What is little known is that it was first theorised by none other than the first finance minister (treasury secretary) of the United States - Alexander Hamilton, whose portrait adorns the $10 bill.

Initially few Americans were convinced by Hamilton's argument. After all, Adam Smith, the father of economics, had already advised Americans against artificially developing manufacturing industries. However, over time people saw sense in Hamilton's argument, and the US shifted to protectionism after the Anglo-American War of 1812. By the 1830s, its industrial tariff rate, at 40-50 per cent, was the highest in the world, and remained so until the Second World War.

The US may have invented the theory of infant industry protection, but the practice had existed long before. The first big success story was, surprisingly, Britain - the supposed birthplace of free trade. In fact, Hamilton's programme was in many ways a copy of Robert Walpole's enormously successful 1721 industrial development programme, based on high (among world's highest) tariffs and subsidies, which had propelled Britain into its economic supremacy

I can't even imagine America being a superpower today if it wasn't for the government coddling back in the day

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...-a-10-bill-458396.html

economic conservatives are ignorant as SHIT when it comes to our nation's economic history

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Fern

Left Vs. Right - Do We Have Irreconcilable Differences?

Of course we do.

However, our Founding Fathers had a solution: Limited federal government and allowing the states to wield the power. In that way everyone, liberal or conservative, could basically go their own way. A"live and let live" thing. If you didn't like the way your state treated things, you could just move to another state more to your liking.

However, that model has been turned on it's head; the federal government has virtually all the power. There is very little 'experimentation' with government etc at the state level anymore. The SCOTUS has used the Interstate Commerce Clause to crush states' rights IMO.

Fern

Another example of hyperbole. Which Founding Fathers were those? The Republicans believed in a limited government but the Federalists believed in a powerful federal government. Men from both sides signed the Constitution. The Federalists won the first battle with regards to the power of the federal government when Hamilton convinced Congress and Washington to enact the First Bank of the US, a power not enumerated to the federal government by the Constitution. People act as if a limited federal government was some cornerstone in the beliefs of all our Founding Fathers, it wasn't. Go read "Report on Manufactures" by Hamilton while he was the first Secretary of the Treasury. He proposed things in that report that would get him labeled a Socialist these days (which is not all that undeserved), and his name is on the Constitution.

In other words, some founding fathers had your solution, others didn't. And it wasn't just recently "turned on its head." This has been a long standing debate.

Hehe, your whole response does nothing else but support my claims: The FF, having irreconciliable differences - Republicans vs Federalists - resolved it by creating a loose federation (weak fed gov) of (powerful) states. That's what the original Constitution sets up. (BTW: I think incorrect touse the term "Republican", I believe the opponents of the Federalists were simply called Anti-Federalists)

And yes, it has been the SCOTUS hard at work turning that model on it head, Congress felt that the 1st bank was unconstitutional and let it's charter expire. Later, when the 2nd Bank was chartered it was SCOTUS (Marshall court) that interpreted the Constitution loosely so as to allow that expansion of federal power.

You injected the term "recently" into the debate, not I. SCOTUS has been expanding fed power since early on as evidenced by the 2nd National Bank case above.

Fern

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Exactly, republicans and libertarians don't know shit about american history and the founding fathers.

Make some more ignorant blanket statements please.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Phokus

Exactly, republicans and libertarians don't know shit about american history and the founding fathers.

Make some more ignorant blanket statements please.

Ok, let me pretend to be a republican then: "ZOMG, I CAN'T BELIEVE ALL THIS SOCIALISM, THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD BE ROLLING IN THEIR GRAVES!"

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Hehe, your whole response does nothing else but support my claims: The FF, having irreconciliable differences - Republicans vs Federalists - resolved it by creating a loose federation (weak fed gov) of (powerful) states. That's what the original Constitution sets up. (BTW: I think incorrect touse the term "Republican", I believe the opponents of the Federalists were simply called Anti-Federalists)

And yes, it has been the SCOTUS hard at work turning that model on it head, Congress felt that the 1st bank was unconstitutional and let it's charter expire. Later, when the 2nd Bank was chartered it was SCOTUS (Marshall court) that interpreted the Constitution loosely so as to allow that expansion of federal power.

You injected the term "recently" into the debate, not I. SCOTUS has been expanding fed power since early on as evidenced by the 2nd National Bank case above.

Fern

Actually his post doesn't support yours at all. The federalists wanted an extremely powerful centralized authority. (Hamilton basically wanted the President to be a king) They most certainly did not compromise by making a 'loose federation' with a 'weak federal government'. In fact the federalists won the early battles convincingly by specifically setting up a STRONG federal government and decreasing the powers of the states. That's the entire reason for the creation of the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, which were actually as you describe it.

What you're saying just isn't historically accurate.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Yes, the differences are irreconcilable. If the wealthy refuse to free the masses and to share the wealth created by the masses in the act of production, then eventually the masses will reconcile the conflicting differences in a flood of blood.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Phokus

Exactly, republicans and libertarians don't know shit about american history and the founding fathers.

Make some more ignorant blanket statements please.

Ok, let me pretend to be a republican then: "ZOMG, I CAN'T BELIEVE ALL THIS SOCIALISM, THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD BE ROLLING IN THEIR GRAVES!"

Good job, I knew you could do it.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Exactly, republicans and libertarians don't know shit about american history and the founding fathers.

:roll:

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Yes, the differences are irreconcilable. If the wealthy refuse to free the masses and to share the wealth created by the masses in the act of production, then eventually the masses will reconcile the conflicting differences in a flood of blood.

So if rich people don't give you some free shit you're going to peel some caps back?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DukeN
There are no irreconciliable differences, just political posturing and greed.

This. Other than the extremists on both sides I believe that most people want to improve the world around them. They just have a different view of how to improve the world. Any animosity between the sides is purely ego, trying to enforce the idea that there is only one right way and that is their way.

Politics is a lot like religion in that sense. At least with the right they're obviously religious and defend their ideas with the same fervor. The same defense can't be made of the left, who love to talk about the separation of church and state when in fact their religion IS the state.

Your attempt at politially correct partisanship fails, let me spin it the other way for you

At least the left is socially concious and truely cares about their fellow man. The same can't be said of the right, who love to talk about religion when in fact their religion IS greed and the relentless pursuit of putting themselves above their fellow man.

I contend that the left is just as greedy as the right. Both want to help their fellow man, but only if it doesn't cost them anything. Remember how the great Ted Kennedy wanted to move to green power for the good of mankind and volunteered to have windmills installed near his home? Yeah, me neither. NIMBYs are everywhere, and not relegated to a single political party.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: totalnoob
I want low taxes and limited government. Leftist bastards want high taxes and an expansive welfare state. Those are irreconcilable differences.

Leftist bastards like the neo-cons? I agree. They should never be allowed to hold any significant office again.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Fern

Left Vs. Right - Do We Have Irreconcilable Differences?

Of course we do.

However, our Founding Fathers had a solution: Limited federal government and allowing the states to wield the power. In that way everyone, liberal or conservative, could basically go their own way. A"live and let live" thing. If you didn't like the way your state treated things, you could just move to another state more to your liking.

However, that model has been turned on it's head; the federal government has virtually all the power. There is very little 'experimentation' with government etc at the state level anymore. The SCOTUS has used the Interstate Commerce Clause to crush states' rights IMO.

Fern

Another example of hyperbole. Which Founding Fathers were those? The Republicans believed in a limited government but the Federalists believed in a powerful federal government. Men from both sides signed the Constitution. The Federalists won the first battle with regards to the power of the federal government when Hamilton convinced Congress and Washington to enact the First Bank of the US, a power not enumerated to the federal government by the Constitution. People act as if a limited federal government was some cornerstone in the beliefs of all our Founding Fathers, it wasn't. Go read "Report on Manufactures" by Hamilton while he was the first Secretary of the Treasury. He proposed things in that report that would get him labeled a Socialist these days (which is not all that undeserved), and his name is on the Constitution.

In other words, some founding fathers had your solution, others didn't. And it wasn't just recently "turned on its head." This has been a long standing debate.

Hehe, your whole response does nothing else but support my claims: The FF, having irreconciliable differences - Republicans vs Federalists - resolved it by creating a loose federation (weak fed gov) of (powerful) states. That's what the original Constitution sets up. (BTW: I think incorrect touse the term "Republican", I believe the opponents of the Federalists were simply called Anti-Federalists)

And yes, it has been the SCOTUS hard at work turning that model on it head, Congress felt that the 1st bank was unconstitutional and let it's charter expire. Later, when the 2nd Bank was chartered it was SCOTUS (Marshall court) that interpreted the Constitution loosely so as to allow that expansion of federal power.

You injected the term "recently" into the debate, not I. SCOTUS has been expanding fed power since early on as evidenced by the 2nd National Bank case above.

Fern

No, the Constitution was interpreted in many different ways. The Federalists felt that the Constitution gave them rights to exercise power that wasn't strictly forbidden. This was Hamilton's argument against Madison and Jefferson when the First Federal Bank was created. Jefferson and Madison argued that the federal government couldn't exercise this power because it wasn't enumerated. Hamilton simply replied that they could exercise this power because it wasn't forbidden. Washington found Hamilton's argument more convincing and the bank was created. It's the Federalist Papers that set out the role of government that is often used by the courts when interpreting the Constitution. It was more appealing then and in some ways it's more appealing now.

Also, Jefferson and Madison conveniently repudiated their small and limited views of the federal government. Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase and Madison when he enacted the Second Bank of the US. It actually received Republican support and Madison, the man who opposed the first bank, signed it into law. What I'm trying to tell you is that these men weren't just some anti-federal government automatons, they exercised power as much as they saw fit to better the nation. And many times this meant expanding the role of the federal government, even by people like Jefferson and Madison who previously fought for a weak central government.

You can lay the blame at their feet as much as you can the Supreme Court.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Yes, the differences are irreconcilable. If the wealthy refuse to free the masses and to share the wealth created by the masses in the act of production, then eventually the masses will reconcile the conflicting differences in a flood of blood.

So if rich people don't give you some free shit you're going to peel some caps back?

It might be more appropriate to say:

"If the upper classes continue to wage a war on the lower classes by purposely and systematically destroying the job market through global labor arbitrage (foreign outsourcing, work visas such as the H-1B and L-1, and mass immigration) as well as continuing to destroy the quality of life by supporting mass immigration and overpopulation, essentially converting the lower classes into slaves for the upper classes, then eventually the masses may reconcile their differences with the upper classes with a bloody revolution."

That's more accurate than saying, "So, if rich people don't give you some free shit, you're saying you're going to peel some caps back?"

What you're missing is the issue of whether or not the rich are really entitled to all they have or whether some of it was stolen from the lower classes. It's easy to assume that the rich really are morally entitled to the wealth they have as opposed to questioning it. Let's suppose, for example, that as a result of a horrific employment market that business owners could keep a larger percentage of the value of a worker's contribution to the act of production as profit for themselves. Might it be argued that the workers should actually have a larger percentage of the value of their contribution to the act of production since the upper classes manipulated the supply of labor to decrease wages (the price point)? When you start to ask questions like that, the dogma that everyone gets what they deserve and that all wealth is earned begins to look questionable, doesn't it?

Let us know if all of that went over your head.