we cannot allow massive wealth if we also want democracy

[welshTerrier2]

if you walk up to someone on the street and ask them if they think the government should have the right to limit how much wealth one could obtain through "legal" means, they would say "no" ...

but if you asked whether they believed that the super-wealthy exert a disproportionate and inappropriate influence on our government, they would say "yes" ...

these two views are incompatible ...

we temper great wealth in a variety of ways ... we have a progressive tax system (sort of?) ... we have laws against monopolies (sort of?) ...we regulate commerce to uphold certain societal needs such as product safety, worker safety, environmental safety (sort of?) ... so in some way, there is at least some recognition paid to the idea that maximizing profits is not the most important societal objective ...

but the problem is, at its root, our government itself and our process of electing government officials is corrupted by "special interests" ... liberals seek to address this problem with bandaid solutions ... many of these "solutions" are good ideas but they have been 100% ineffective in preserving our democracy ... "money will out" ... big money = big power = big corruption = loss of democracy ...

efforts of campaign finance reform have been easily circumvented ... efforts of lobby reform have been pathetic ... our government is owned lock, stock and barrel by powerful corporate interests and the big money shareholders hidden behind them ... the entire "rebuild New Orleans" group is comprised of corporate lobbyists ... look at the no-bid contracts given to Halliburton in New Orleans and in Iraq ... the truth is, our entire foreign policy for many decades has done nothing but cater to the interests of big oil ... as a nation, we are in debt up to our eyeballs, we are at war, we are at great risk ... and all this while big oil experiences record profits in the tens of billions ...

one thing is certain ... if we continue to allow the great powers of our country to be driven by those who seek profits for themselves rather than policies designed to serve the best interests of the country, America will not be a very pleasant place to live for much longer ... if we fail to rid our government from the corrupting influences of massive wealth and power, we will soon see a precipitous decline of a once great America ... legislative "tweaking" has not corralled corporate corruption or the infestation of big money into our democratic institutions ... it is time to put limits on massive wealth; there is no alternative ...

it is time for a new American revolution that restricts the abuses of the aristocracy by limiting their wealth and power ... let's hope this revolution can be accomplished without bloodshed and violence ...

the following is an excerpt from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1826 (read on the Thom Hartmann show today):

source: http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/jefferson/giles.html

But this opens with a vast accession of strength from their younger recruits, who, having nothing in them of the feelings or principles of ’76, now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry. This will be to them a next best blessing to the monarchy of their first aim, and perhaps the surest stepping-stone to it.

[whatever4]

1. Oh my

I'm a libertarian.

For all this, for all this unfairness you perceive and want to "fix", I have to ask you...who decided the limits? Who decided who gets what, and can you see how this system can be just as easily perverted as free market democracy?

I have a counter for you. What if taxes were voluntary, if we all managed to pay enough to not need a forced tax system? Then the rich would well and truly be pushed out of government. Politicians would no longer pander to the wealthy and the large businesses dollars, and so, they wouldn't have that "stronger" vote. The wouldn't be any more important than the rest of us.

I agree, the problem is money, but not in the way you think. You think people are too greedy, and I agree, greed is real. But, from where I'm sitting, the vast problems we see don't come from people not sharing enough, they come from people undermining our democracy, putting unfair burdens on the lower classes and the smaller businesses, and in the process, what we have is the wealthy stomping all over the less fortunate. It becomes legal theft. The rich steal from the poor, and call it taxes. It's exactly what they're doing now. Was never a question of the rich being too rich. They STEAL from us to get that way, and THAT'S the problem, and it's illegal already. Fascism. Unfair business influence in government. Government owns business and business owns government.

Where your ideas bother me is, rather than freeing up people to get better, it has that same "keep everybody down to the same low level" feel to it, and it might sound okay to someone that's in a low place, but most people don't see that as being a preferable state of affairs.

Problem is, there IS no great big grownup up in the sky to make law for us, to take care of us all and make us all "mind". So, it's generally better to put all peoples on as equal footing as much as possible, because when you invite the abuse, handing over loads of power and money, you fairly well guarantee that someone will find away around the rules. Just like they did here, and they broke the law to do it. It was never our system in the first place, fascism. That's not privatization anyway, even if they say it is, there's nothing private about it, with such close economic ties between business and government.

It was already against the law.

[welshTerrier2]

4. libertarianism ...

first, before you go off saying i want to ""keep everybody down to the same low level", please look carefully at my post ... you'll see i made no reference whatsoever to any idea about a "same level" ... limiting massive wealth does NOT imply that all would have the exact same economic status ...

what regulation of commerce, if any, do you support? or do you believe a truly "free market" will solve all our problems??

i see government, at least government as it should be, as citizens coming together to serve the common good ... i believe in governments ... and i believe in the need for government, as the people's representatives, to place restrictions on those who obtain so much power that they are able to do harm to the interests of the country while pursuing their own selfish goals ...

i am not opposed at all to the accumulation of wealth; i am not opposed at all to commerce ... but both business and individuals should not be so powerful that they are able to co-opt a government formed at the behest of its citizens ...

[whatever4]

26. "should not be so powerful"

But how will we ever change that dynamic? They have always been, and will always be powerful. There will always be rich people and big businesses.

This was long and rambling, and I think I'm a poor speaker for libertarianism, so please don't judge libertarians by my words. Disclaimer for the billion words; I know it's the mark of a poor writer to write too much ;)

"first, before you go off"
It was never my intention, sorry it seemed that way

'saying i want to ""keep everybody down to the same low level", please look carefully at my post ... you'll see i made no reference whatsoever to any idea about a "same level" ... limiting massive wealth does NOT imply that all would have the exact same economic status ...'
No, but it does imply an upper limit, because your point is there are too many people with too much more money than others. "the super-wealthy exert a disproportionate and inappropriate influence on our government" is what you said was a concern. Who sets this upper limit, and, how sure can we ever be that upper limit isn't too low? Frequently, such as with social security, upper limits on income are FAR too low, and it hurts real people in a real way. Limits are a theory, but what social security has become is a FACT.

what regulation of commerce, if any, do you support?
Well, I'm not sure how much to go into that. I don't think it has much to so with our current problems. In our nation the laws have been broken. It wasn't that they used existing law to create a fascism. They broke many laws. And it was government officials that did it, right alongside the wealthy, in some cases the same people. It's arguable that they could have done the same thing, and would have done the same thing, in any system. Because this sort of thing has happened before, in human history. Greed isn't new. Greedy and dishonest government isn't new. Robber barons aren't new.

or do you believe a truly "free market" will solve all our problems??
I believe our problems have nothing to do with a free market in the first place, so I have no answer to that.

If we have rampant cronyism, is that representational government?

If large business and corporate interests influence our laws, before concerns for the welfare of us, is that the fault of business, or government? I say the government, and this is why; I've read that some businesses actually WANTED the government to enact certain environmental laws, because without the law as a level playing field, they could not compete with the ones that didn't care. The one's that broke the law, got around the law, and in so many cases now, changed the law, in their favor, to relax environmental regulations, or OSHA regulations, and on and on. And the losing businesses lost out, because they couldn't compete, and then look at what types of businesses we've lost; the ethical ones. Bad government influenced by bad businesses, and that furthered bad government, and in fact, it FUNDED bad government. Good businesses not listened to, shut out, and run over.

I just can't argue with you that large corporate interests and the superwealthy elite are ruining us, but where we disagree is how.

i see government, at least government as it should be, as citizens coming together to serve the common good ... i believe in governments ... and i believe in the need for government, as the people's representatives, to place restrictions on those who obtain so much power that they are able to do harm to the interests of the country while pursuing their own selfish goals ...

I believe in government too, but I believe it should be much more focused on individual needs, and contract law.

I also, and this might make you laugh, believe communities naturally turn socialistic. I think, when people function and live well together, they want to provide more and more for the common good.

To me, that's where I see the tax system as being the problem. I think social programs and governmental agencies seeing to our common needs are a good thing, a natural thing, it's what we're used to, and what we want. None of us wants to try to build a road, well, hardly any. But, it's the funding, and the selfishness over it, and in the end, mismanagement and waste of the money. Even though every poll indicates we, by the very vast majority, BELIEVE in taxes and believe everyone should pay a fair share.

I think, I really think, that people want to pay, and if they could do so without penalty, without even ID necessary, they would pay to support social programs. I think what it is, is that, we don't trust each other, we don't trust ourselves to support anything. So, we believe if we make laws to force people to pay, in taxes, that everyone will. But, they don't. The super-wealthy are so good with money, it's my honest opinion we must spend more money getting their taxes than we even get in taxes. Even the most ethical of them still have to shield their money, have to hire tax lawyers, and in the end, we're just never going to beat the money people at their own "money game". It's what they do, what they're best at...certainly don't waste hours on introspection like we do...and we'll never beat them at it. Why try? Those that want to give, they WILL give. In fact, some people even give extra, to help make up, there are always generous people.

Why don't we harness that? In fact, why don't we trust that? We're, for the very most part, a law abiding people, who work hard and want to live ethical lives. It's not the tax law that makes us want to build common good for the community. But, when we treat people like criminals, with tax codes, while REAL criminals are the ones wasting money and many practically living like royalty, where's the real problem? If government waste and mismanagement of tax dollars are causing problems, how can we fix that by changing the economic system??

"i am not opposed at all to the accumulation of wealth; i am not opposed at all to commerce ... but both business and individuals should not be so powerful that they are able to co-opt a government formed at the behest of its citizens ..."
I don't completely agree or disagree. You said "both business and individuals should not be so powerful that they are able to co-opt a government formed at the behest of its citizens", but...individuals should be so powerful as to co-opt the government, because government "by the people, of the people, for the people" means they do. Businesses? Yeah, they shouldn't have a vote.

I think we both perceive problems in representation, but we're looking at different ways of attacking it. I see our nation as being fascist, and it seems you lean towards socialism to fix it, which I don't understand, because that basically gives more power to the same people. We need business OUT of government. We need government out of business too then, it would seem.

I understand common good, common needs. But, I don't want any of my needs to be "profitable", meaning the more needs I have, the more profit there is to be made. Drug companies pushing medications...need conditions for them. Sounds nuts, but we all know how many medications have been pushed on us when they weren't safe enough. Many of us took meds without knowing all the risks, and if we're taking a risk that's worth the benefit, it hardly helps us to be unaware of the fact. Government regs could save us from that danger. But...they didn't. Regs were worked around. For profit.

Yeah. I don't want any of my "needs" to become profitable. I want business OUT of government, because I don't want taking care of ME to become a necessary ingredient to THEIR continued profit. Those are the kinds of concerns I have, with what you discuss.

It's like with the war. These horrible monsters started a war, just for profit, I think we can all agree now. Iraq is all about oil and the war machine. Money. They had to further a WAR for money, because we have a government of professional war mongers. We want government to manage affairs, but not people, because when people manage other people unnecessarily, like with war (Iraq war, drug war, take your pick), it hurts them. It's the unnecessary management aspect that worries me, because my understanding of human history and government makes me believe it's always a weakness, and when it's allowed, it's direction "they" take. Monopolies like Walmart, making bank by doing unethical business in other countries, and then they conduct unethical business here too. I don't WANT their tax dollars, I don't want to shop there to give them money for taxes, because I don't want to give them money PERIOD. But, if they're contibuting a lot of tax dollars, don't they get preferantial treatment, and don't we pander to them for that very reason, so they can "support us"? It's an ugly circle. A nation run by a bunch of Walmarts, and then there's eminent domain...for taxes. On and on. Our lives equaling profit FOR government, while they spend more and more of our money NOT on the common good, because what is the common good if it's only measured in tax dollars? Profit. That is where I see a problem. Taxes. But not the concept of contritution. The concept that we need a government OF the people to force us to pay it. I say the people would be more ethical in supporting than the rulers are ethical at not taking too much.

If we paid voluntary taxes, no one would be shorted. No one would "give too much", which is a native intelligence for all families and individuals we ought to tap in on, use THAT strength, use THAT idea of knowing taxes aren't anything to be afraid of. We pay. WE the people are not unethical by large measure, and, we shouldn't treat ourselves that way. Or ALLOW our GOVERNMNET to treat us that way. It's not their place; WE the people rule. WE the people would take care of this payment business; all we need to know are the needs. The REAL needs, not half a million little programs with pork and secret military ops and who knows what all our money is spent on which. We just don't have any idea, and in the end, those creeps still live and act like royaly.

Why do they do that? It reminds of of, what, Great Expectations, where the main character was being supported in fine style by a pauper? Just because, out of the goodness of his heart, the pauper wanted that boy to have that lifestyle? Yes, it would be good if we, the paupers, had a choice in the matter, but, I don't think we do. I think it's a big problem, that our system facilitates lies and greed and doesn't listen to those paying the most, just those paying in the biggest chunks. We are the largest tax base, but the big businesses make the biggest splashes in taxes, to the public eye. We pay income tax, we pay at the store, we pay in purchases large and small, property tax, taxes imbedded at all levels...who pays? WE do.

We need to be able to elect ethical people, and, we need a government that sees no need to control people for profit. When mismanagement of our shared resources by the government costs lives, like in Katrina, it's easy to see how terribly important it is to keep public servants, real public servants and not shills, in public office, and fight cronyism with every strength we have. I worry that, in focusing on individual wealth and business, we forget that it was a select group of those types of individuals that have done the stealing and wasting. And, is it ever any other way, when a government goes badly? I have to say, wealth and businesses aren't anything new. We aren't going to get rid of them, and likely, no government will fairly "manage" them when corruption and greed, OUR TAX dollars, provide them with incentive and rewards. I just don't see your ideas of limits and control helping us control THEM. It would seem to further the entire crony empire.

[Solon]

28. Let me just say, your no libertarian I ever heard of...

First off, you recognize "the commons" at all is a large leap for a libertarian. Second off, yes it is true, many local communities, regardless of who controls it, tend towards socialism, look at how many "community banks" there are that are majority owned by the citizens of the towns they are in. The only problems I see in your post are certain misconceptions, for example, are most effecient government programs are Medicaid, Medicare, and ADFC(Food Stamps, Welfare for the poor). Yes there is some cheaters in those systems, but I don't really care about the guy who used 200 dollars in food stamps to buy liquor instead, I care more about Boeing or Halliburton overcharging us for half a billion dollars in a no-bid contract.

Also, as far as your history is concerned, let me say, we only expermented with the "Free Market" twice in our history(1870s-1900s, 1915-1929), and it was a disaster. I wouldn't even call it a free market, except for that so many people seem to not understand that a free market, with wealth removed from government, is impossible in such a system. Before this system was instituted, we had corporations that were charted by the states, for a LIMITED amount of time, to do one, maybe two things, and if they stepped out of line, the state legislators pulled the charter and dissolved the assets.

Then things changed, the Civil War, and the rise of Corporate Power, in the form of the Robber Barons, Army versus Unions(unions lost most of the time), child labor in mines, etc. Then a rabble rousing Socialist named Upton Sinclair wrote a little book, called "The Jungle" that exposed the conditions of Meat Packing plants. This lead to the first of many regulations to come of various industries, health and worker safety rules, etc. Then the government pulled back yet again, in regulating Corporations, and low and behold, the economy boomed, then it busted, BIG TIME. In comes Roosevelt, the second one, the first one put the regulations on the meat packing industry. Anyways, so thanks to GOVERNMENT worker programs, people were employed, thanks to government projects, rural farmers, for the first time, had electric lightbulbs in their houses.

The thing is that the government is neither good nor bad, it is simply a tool, a tool that can be used for good or ill, depending on who is in charge, and how they are put there. As far as I can tell, a democracy is the worst form of government we can have, but only if you don't compare to all the other forms that were tried in the past. A hammer is a tool, it can be used either to build houses, or to smash someones skull in, it all depends on whether the person holding it is a carpenter or a psychopath. It is our job, in a democracy, to NOT elect the psychopath in this case, and that means electing the right people in government. That also means we need to push for these same people to give the government more transparency and make sure it is accountable to us.

[whatever4]

30. Libertarian wannabe maybe :)

"Let me just say, your no libertarian I ever heard of..."
Thank you...I think? I might have a slightly different view, but there are wide variations among libs. Even on the abortion issue, though most want it legal, they themselves believe it to be wrong. Personally, in this discussion I think I've moved out of my depth, so all I can say is, please don't judge libertarians by me, because I'm a poor representative with no type of "degree" or much historical knowledge, and...I argue with libertarians too.

First off, you recognize "the commons" at all is a large leap for a libertarian. Second off, yes it is true, many local communities, regardless of who controls it, tend to wards socialism, look at how many "community banks" there are that are majority owned by the citizens of the towns they are in.
That's what I mean, common needs always exist. Whether libertarians recognize them or not. It's usually not the need, but the funding of it that seems to cause this divide, and "forcing" some people to provide for others, when we believe we all ought to be free. They say "NO taxes", as if, the public should fund it, charities. Government of the people; we shouldn't be paying for what we don't want. I say, tie it together by using voluntary taxes, and IF it worked, it would help us all out enormously. It would save money, save time, save some people vast problems, like property taxes on fixed incomes causing lost homes, how horrible, and perhaps for some of the wealthy, it would save them money that they'd rather just put into the system. Heck with lawyers, heck with worrying about being audited.

IF it worked, it would help us. I think. It's what the founders wanted in the first place. In my simple mind, this is why. Because, this way, we can support any program we want, without hurting anyone, without unfair laws or people complaining about taxes. People complaining about the poor, as if the homeless are such a drain. Even when those "homeless" are a lot of women and children. That's what it comes down too. I think we aren't harnessing our own good natures, and so we've handed our government over to those wealthy jerks. Thinking we depend on them. Depend on them? Hell, I don't even want to ride in an elevator with them, the likes of Enron. Depend on their tax dollars? I'd rather not, because, I don't like how they do business in the FIRST place.

But my government does. Because my government wants their money. Because it's all about money.

I don't think it's all about money. I think it's all about how we believe we're all too selfish. But if we were, would so many people be on here talking about it? All across the country? We're better than that, but we're letting a bunch of selfish jerks convince us we're not. As if we're all paupers, all beggars...for wanting better schools and roads? No. We're not beggars, we aren't stupid, and we aren't selfish. I think what it is, is that, we're underutilized.

The only problems I see in your post are certain misconceptions, for example, are most efficient government programs are Medicaid, Medicare, and ADFC(Food Stamps, Welfare for the poor).

I can understand that argument, but I didn't discuss those programs. My only problem with programs is when they're too stingy, when they force people to maintain their status down to an unreasonably low level, like with social security, something people depend on HEAVILY, and this government being stingy. It's completely counterproductive. If people need help, they need help, and if they need FOOD money, there isn't any government program I want to make them choose between food and medicine.

But the people and the government programs defend this stingy attitude, because they say there isn't enough money. Because we're all "forced" to pay taxes, because we all don't "really" want to support the needs. Well, if the funds came for free, it would be easier to see that we DO want to provide that. And there wouldn't be any excuse for limiting if, when the money was needed, the money was provided.

It might not work completely, but I can't help but believe this is a tool we ought to use, this idea of people WILL TO donate to taxes, if given the chance, and that the more they did, the more fair it would all be. The less we'd have to worry, and, the better we'd all feel about ourselves. No more putting down the poor for being a "drain". Personally, I don't want to see anybody starve, and I think most communities feel the same way. It's where I WANT my tax dollars. It's a good I'd really LIKE to be able to provide. So...maybe...let's build some government programs around that. Because for every penny given freely, it would cost us much less to accept it, and businesses wouldn't be involved in government as much without that tax-money-political-vote system, no one would be "held down" to an arbitrary economic level, the truly selfish won't even be happy here (so many some would leave hehe) and maybe, just maybe we'd further promote the programs we like. Maybe we'd all like the free breakfasts at various corners, free food for anyone that wants it, government run, buy donations. Maybe we'd all start eating breakfast together, I don't know. It could happen. If the public liked it, and the public supported it, it wouldn't be a drain on anybody. It wouldn't be a negative thing to eat the free breakfasts, it would just expand the program. Free of charge. I know it's just a theory. I just don't think it's ever been given a chance. Free taxes. No more dirty politicians. They'd have to work with US, all of us ordinary US, WE would be the money, and WE would be in charge.

And if things ever went wrong? REally, really wrong? Like with Bush? Well, fancy what happens if we pull the plug on funding, in droves, as public opinion shows we no longer support the war?

We wouldn't have to wait for elections to put a stop to it. If we still believe in government of the people, by the people, for the people. We need more power. We need to trust ourselves more. Under this theoretical system, Iraq would stop TODAY. Ultimate power to destroy the government with opinion. I think that's how it ought to be anyway. If we made any mistakes, drastic changes in funding that caused problems, I'm sure we, as a society, would learn from them. Fact is, life is already pretty messed up for a lot of people in our country, like in Katrina, we've already made drastic mistakes with the forced system we have now, and money and resources were NOT the problem. Corruption caused lack of representation in government; might as well have had no money at ALL, for what good it's done for thousands of people. Millions potentially, in total property loss? In looking at Katrina...how much worse a mistake could we have possibly made for those people? It could hardly have been any worse...

Very humble opinions here. Thank you

[Solon]

36. I would agree with you on voluntary taxes with one creveat...

if you don't pay, you don't vote. That way the people who do pay get to choose the government they fund, the ones who don't pay have to deal with said government. To be honest, this whole idea is "pie in the sky" BS. No one wants to pay taxes, and the richest people who benefit the MOST from government programs, even indirectly, will refuse to pay, and the government will collapse entirely. The founding fathers did NOT want that, they tried it, yes, and found it didn't work, Articles of Confederation anyone?

The problem is that those who refuse to pay will unfairly burden those who do, in some respects, they already do. In order to even make such a system remotely fair, then the government should not so much as provide a paved road out to the non-taxpayers house, why should I pay for that road, and not him or her? Same for police, fire, and healthcare, where is the fairness for those of us generous enough to pay for a working government?

I find your faith in human generousity quite, well, naive. I used to be a libertarian, back in high school, I grew up, hope you do to. The biggest problem is not that government corrupts, no, its wealth and power that corrupts people, governments are simply ONE mechnasim that brings to life such corruption, but its not the only one. Basically your idea will starve the national government to such an extent that corporations like Wal*Mart will be forced to take over the government's roles in many areas, and when that happens, its simply fascism, for corporations are nothing more than small fascist dictatorships themselves.

[whatever4]

42. SO far out of my depth here

I would agree with you on voluntary taxes with one creveat...

"if you don't pay, you don't vote. That way the people who do pay get to choose the government they fund, the ones who don't pay have to deal with said government. "

But I have to ask you why you'd want that? That's like saying so many of the Katrina families, to use them as an example again, wouldn't be voting? Since they're a lot of the people we've been donating to recently, it doesn't seem reasonable to not want them to vote if they don't pay taxes. No, I want them to do better, no contributions from them necessary right now. And God bless. Why would we want to take away the right of representation for the less fortunate? I don't see a need or a good outcome for that, I honestly don't.

Plus, I want anyone to be able to pay into our system. Not just people who can vote here. Even overseas, anybody can pay whatever they want. From any income. Drug money? I don't think it's any different than bootleg booze. Not one single bit. Not an iota. And some of them would pay, I think, because even the Mafia did that sometimes. Did it just for good pr? Well, so what? It doesn't take a terribly nobel ideal for donations to be helpful, money is still green.

And, I just have to add, if anyone thought that would be unethical because drugs are illegal or the gang violence, I have to remind you of where we ARE getting our monies, and what THOSE people are doing. Environment? War? Pharmacies? Anyone want to talk morals and ethics in that crowd? Hey, lets face it, drugs are a victimless crime because, short of selling someone an incorrect or corrupted drug, no one's going to the police over the "crime". People have to be "caught" using, meaning it's not a crime like robbery, where folks are hurt, have their good stolen, or are in anyway "harmed". No one's running to the cops to say... OH I just did a drug, put me in jail to stop me, please. No, drugs = alcohol all the way around, as far as I'm concerned, and they're not any less ethical than a lot of "companies" supporting our comfortable lifestyles right NOW. Theft. Global warming. What have these businesses done, and how ethical are they?

I mean I had no idea, unfortunately, until just a few years ago just how terribly corrupt some of these large businesses (like Walmart, I am so ashamed how much money I spent there) have been. The drug companies. I mean, the list goes on and on, and it just goes to show how true it is that I don't really have to provide any links or mention many stories about the topic. We ALL know how badly many of the large multinationals have behaved, against persons and against the environment, against the law and, frankly, against an entire nation. Or two, or who knows? I don't. But I know for damned sure my dad took Vioxx, my kids got vaccinated when they were babies, and yes there are attention deficit issues. I know I started smoking as a teen, which isn't bright, but someone makes a lot of money over it. Someone else will make a lot of money over how much more money it's going to take for heating and gas for the car.

I also want people to be able to donate materials, to donate their time and expertise, muscle power if nothing else. People always want to help, especially when it makes them look good, or, if they feel a strong desire to give back to their communities, or just because it's what their neighbor is doing.

I believe in peer pressure :)



"To be honest, this whole idea is "pie in the sky" BS."

I'm sorry. It was not my intent to spew BS. Or be insulting. Or to be insulted. Again, I'm going off a theory that I don't think has ever been tried. Has it?


No one wants to pay taxes,"
Yes, but we all SAY we believe in the idea of taxes and common good. Who's making the rules then, that strong majority that believes in taxes, or the your "No one wants to pay taxes," See, there's a divide there. But it ISN'T a divide in people paying, because look how much we've donated for Katrina victims?

I think what no one wants is to be forced to pay taxes. I think people pay all the time, in virtually every purchase, correct? Yes, we believe in paying taxes.

" and the richest people who benefit the MOST from government programs,"
Would they? Why? Would the rich be mingling with the rest of us for free breakfasts? Would the rich be shopping at Walmart? Government programs are geared toward the rich, the rich hardly have need for any help at all, how would they benefit more than anyone else? I'd think they'd be more likely to want better than the "common", in most things, as they do now. They don't drive cars, they drive REALLY nice cars. Not houses, mansions. Not coach, private jet. And on, and on. Spending money is what they do.

Benefit from the programs? To be quite honest, I don't see how or why. No matter WHAT we have, they'll always want (and have) better than the rest of us. No matter what we have, they'll have a better one. That's how it works. Free healthcare? Healthcare to include surgery at a spa (I saw that the other day on tv, forget which country, anyone else, wasn't that amazing?), with luxury rooms instead of hospital rooms. Free food? Food cooked by naked women...I don't know, but, you get my point. The most they could benefit is the most any of us benefited, and it became severely abused by anyone, for problems, I'd think we could deal with that on a case by case basis.


" even indirectly, will refuse to pay, and the government will collapse entirely. "

Only if we let it. And, I don't think we would. What would be the benefit?

"The founding fathers did NOT want that, they tried it, yes, and found it didn't work, Articles of Confederation anyone?"

Yes, and I agree. But, what I mean to say is, they were talking about forced taxes. Weren't they?

"The problem is that those who refuse to pay will unfairly burden those who do, "
Yes, but lets look at that realistically. That is one type of problem, a problem that could hurt the system, and a problem that could, as you say, cause unfairness. Some would pay, others wouldn't, but would instead, live off others.

I have to ask you, how great a problem do you think that would be? Realistically? Would we have more individuals trying and wanting to do that than we do, say, homeless right now? For every person you imagine doing that, would you say it equals how many homeless we have right now, is more than that many, or might be less than that many. How will that, potential, problem, have a negative effect, and, would it be worse than the overall unfairness of the system we have now?

Is it possible that more people would have more of the resources they are entitled to, however you believe a person is entitled to exist, in the voluntary system with a few people not paying, whereas on the other hand right now we have an unfairness of people not...eating? They all "have" to pay, according to the tax tables, and even if they don't pay income tax, we all pay taxes in purchasing. WE all pay all the time, even if we don't "make" a dime. Hardly anyone is self-supporting and outside the economy.

I don't think we'd let people starve. I think we'd get used to paying in other ways, and we'd feel much, much better about it. In knowing that the taxes weren't being "taken", we'd all understand that it all came from all our pockets ALL the time. It could become a habit. I really think it would become a habit. It might generate less money, but, we already pay a lot. Maybe this could save us enough money to help make up the difference? I mean, taxes are a big business, really big, legal industries devoted to them. (sorry about the loss of jobs on that...but...okay I'm getting all mired up)

I can understand your point, that there would be people who would not pay, or would not pay enough. But, I can counter with, some people will always pay, and some of them will actually pay more. I used to do it myself, it's what helped me recognize this, because when my kids went on field trips, sometimes I'd pay for one other classmate, if I could. When they ask for donations, I tried to give, even give a little extra. It wasn't any skin off my nose, and extra roll of paper towels, you know? All I had to know was the need. I think communities naturally turn a little socialist? Isn't it possible this is a resource we could tap for government, if it all came out on the plus side?

"in some respects, they already do. In order to even make such a system remotely fair, then the government should not so much as provide a paved road out to the non-taxpayers house, why should I pay for that road, and not him or her? Same for police, fire, and healthcare, where is the fairness for those of us generous enough to pay for a working government?"

I'd say the fairness would be that there would be more people like you, and that if and when a system like that worked out, and gave us better government in the process, it would grow.

"I find your faith in human generosity quite, well, naive. "

One of my more endearing qualities, to be sure

"I used to be a libertarian, back in high school, I grew up, hope you do to. "

Sigh

"The biggest problem is not that government corrupts, no, its wealth and power that corrupts people, governments are simply ONE mechanism that brings to life such corruption, "

Yes, and they're always the target, because they're always the tool used to change the law, legal theft, perversion of common good toward selective good for a few, they're the prime mechanism.


"but its not the only one. Basically your idea will starve the national government to such an extent that corporations like Wal*Mart will be forced to take over the government's roles in many areas, "

I don't agree. I don't think either one of us has anything to back it up though.

"and when that happens, its simply fascism, for corporations are nothing more than small fascist dictatorships themselves.
Yeah, it would be, but what bothers me is, that's basically what we have now.

That was fun, thanks :)

[Occulus]

5. Eliminate corporate personhood.

Make all rights natural persons enjoy be priveleges for corporations revokable upon a simple state vote to revoke the corporate charter. Make a "corporate death penalty" automatic and irrevocable if a corporation steps outside the charter.

Make the establishment of corporate charters a state vote. Utterly revoke the "right" of corporations to retain armed security or purchase any form of firearms. Likewise for their "right" to advertise.

Make political contributions from corporations equally verboten and also subject to the corporate death penalty. Force CEO and board wages to equal a percentage of profit, and make that law on the state level. Additionally, states should require corporations give back a percentage of their profits to a pool for the state to use for its citizens.

Corporations do not have a right to "rights". They are not human and, therefore, should not enjoy the benefits of citizenship.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. I disagree.

If the government did this, or if it even looked as though the government was considering doing this, the result would be total economic meltdown. No-one would gain, and nearly everyone would lose.

These proposals would make being a corporation far, far less profitable. That would mean that lots of corporations would go bust, and the ones that didn't would have to cut wages and raise prices. Unemployment and poverty would soar, creating a vicious circle.

Most employment in the US is by corporations, not individuals.

The way to improve the current economy is not to get rid of corporations, but to put limits on them - introduce more stringent taxes and fines on undesirable actions (polluting, forming monopolies etc) and incentives for desirable ones (treating workers well, supporting local communities etc).

[1932]

33. I agree too. For this reason:

The world is a complicated place which requires complicated, large entities to do things that can make a lot of people's lives better. The problem isn't that we have an entity called a corporation that gets special legal treatment that allows it to more easily engage in complicated activity.

The problem is power.

The problem, for example, is that we have a government that enacts a tax code which makes life easy for corporations and people whose wealth comes from the activities of large corporations while making life hard for people who work for a living. We have a government that gives corporations no-bid cost-plus contracts while taking away money that could make individiuals educated, healthy and happy.

We need a different government which doesn't use its power to benefit the wealthy. We don't need to rewrite completely the corporate code of laws.

Having said that, the one thing I'd like to see is more shareholder control over the board of directors, less insulation from shareholder law suits, and much more transparency so that shareholders can know what corporations are really doing.

[1932]

34. I agree too. For this reason:

The world is a complicated place which requires complicated, large entities to do things that can make a lot of people's lives better. The problem isn't that we have an entity called a corporation that gets special legal treatment that allows it to more easily engage in complicated activity.

The problem is power.

The problem, for example, is that we have a government that enacts a tax code which makes life easy for corporations and people whose wealth comes from the activities of large corporations while making life hard for people who work for a living. We have a government that gives corporations no-bid cost-plus contracts while taking away money that could make individiuals educated, healthy and happy.

We need a different government which doesn't use its power to benefit the wealthy. We don't need to rewrite completely the corporate code of laws.

Having said that, the one thing I'd like to see is more shareholder control over the board of directors, less insulation from shareholder law suits, and much more transparency so that shareholders can know what corporations are really doing.

[Vinnie From Indy]

49. You'd be disagreeing with our founding fathers

Giving corporations the same protections as citizens enjoy in the bill of rights is dangerous.

[zanne]

35. Why would it have to be a "low" level?

You're assuming that, if everybody had more or less the same income, that it would be low. Who says? Would you have to have more than other people to consider yourself a success?

[whatever4]

47. Well, because that's what always happens

When all the focus is on getting the money, it seems like they at the same time alwasy feel free to be stingy about money. I think what winds up happening is we're all expected to make "sacrafices", but, what I don't trust is who decided what is an acceptable limit.

I look at social security, and I mean really, who in their right mind wants our retired citizens or disabled to be in poor shape, WHO in their right mind would place them in poverty? But...it happened. Government programs can be heartless that way.

When it's all about money.

But no, me personally I don't need more than others to feel sucessful. I already DO have a lot more than a lot of people. Who here doesn't; we have electricity and we can read. What I worry about is a very difficult economy and shrinking resources that leave most of us without enough to survive very well.

We're REALLY going to need representation for the masses. We'll get run over if we don't. Just like we are now. But worse. I don't want to see anyone starve. I mean, I SINCERELY don't want anyone to starve.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. We need some...

...kind of sensible cap on personal wealth. Unfortunately, Americans have been duped into thinking the unbridled accumulation of personal material wealth is the constitutional right of every citizen, and even, that it is an honorable pursuit. It is, in fact, neither.

[welshTerrier2]

11. i agree ...

for starters, i'd like to see a tax on wealth either in addition to or instead of the income tax ...

taxes should be based on an ability to pay ... what sense does it make for someone with billions to be taxed only on their current year's income ??

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. None at all...

...I can think of no compelling argument for not forcing people of considerable net worth to contribute meaningfully and fairly to the common good regardless of their current year's income. The system our forefathers put in place, intended to give voice to the people through their elected representatives, has been turned on its head. It is not the people, but big corporations and special interests who enjoy representation (as you have already pointed out). These super wealthy interests not only do not contribute to the common good, but through what are supposed to be the people's elected representatives (and unelected, in the case of King George), only plunder it.

This picture says it better than I could ever hope to with words:

[PeaceProgProsp]

17. It's important to encourage people with great wealth to use that

wealth productively, rather than to sit on it.

Large landholders, for example, would have little incentive to use their land (or sell it to someone who could use it more productively) -- which benefits society -- if it were not for reasonable property tax (which is a form of wealth tax).

But it's always important to remember that scale of wealth is important.

If you're a retiree or unemployed, with no income, sometimes a property tax can really hurt you. So it would be great if there were a progressive tax on property, rather than a flat rate.

Incidentally, a problem with a wealth tax is valuation. Property is a little easier to value since there's a market that goes on daily, but it still isn't a completely smooth process. Note, however, that if property tax were progressive, small landholders would have much less exposure to slight mistakes in valuation. (For example, say the tax rate were .05% of the first 50,000, .07% of the next 50,000, then moving up to 10% in small increments up to values between, say, 5,000,000 and 10,000,000, and so on -- I think something like that would work well.)

In a sense, tax on interest income from savings is also a wealth tax. But I really think for lower income people, tax on interest income as we do it today is really unfair. For someone in the middle class, interest income might be, literally, their only unearned income, and it might be taxed at 28% (because it's taxed at earned income rates), which is almost twice the tax rate on dividends and capital gains income for a billionaire. I don't have a problem with a billionaire paying high tax rates on bank interest, for interest income of, say 1,000,000, because you would want that super-wealthy person to be finding more useful ways to use their money rather than have it sit in a bank. But a poor person should be encouraged to save with very low tax rates on savings account interest.

So, bottom line, I agree that taxes should closely approximate your wealth and not your income. But, as important as that is that all tax rates are progressive -- whether a wealth tax, a quasi-wealth tax (like property and interest income tax), an income tax, or whatever.

I think the consequence of good tax policy would be that more people at the bottom would be lifted up with the consequence of fewer people with stratospheric wealth -- and whether a goal or consequence of policy, the effect of reducing top of the scale incomes would be great for society.

I think I read here at DU recently that Sweden has among the highest pre-tax income inequality in the world, but one of the very lowest distributions of after-tax inequality, and every social indicator in Sweden suggests that the people are healthy, smart and happy. This might be a chicken or egg question.

It's very possible that the after-tax equality (and the social spending it allows) is the cause of the pre-tax inequality: people are able to reap such huge rewards for their work because Sweden provides a society in which everyone can reach their huge potential. I think we're learning in the US that the other side of that coin is also true: when you have a society that can so effectively polarize wealth, you have a poorer society in which a lot of people who have a lot to offer never get to realize their potential and that the society as a whole can hit the skids as a result.

[welshTerrier2]

20. great analysis of tax policy

very nice job, PeaceProgProsp !!

i strongly agree with your emphasis on the importance of progressivity in the tax system ... so much so that i would probably exempt large amounts of wealth (including property) and income from taxation especially for those on fixed incomes ... it's outrageous to see the elederly driven from their homes because of property taxes ... i generally hate the property tax as a vehicle for taxation ... i might choose to exempt something like the first $500,000 of assessed valuation from the tax ...

one of the specific areas i've been thinking about (and writing about) is the capital gains tax ... first, the argument that taxing either savings, dividends or capital gains is "double taxation" is nonsense ... whether it is or is not should make no difference in an "ability to pay" based system ... fundamentally, i don't like the idea that income from investments is taxed at a lower rate than earned income ... it seems to me that labor should be valued more than capital and current tax policy embodies the opposite values ...

I don't know enough about the impact on capital formation to argue that capital gains "discounts" should be eliminated completely or perhaps capital gains should be taxed at HIGHER rates than earned income ... but one change i do argue for is to use the "capital gain discount" to provide incentives to investors to invest in companies that provide jobs in the US ...

so, as an example, let's say a company employs 75% of its workforce overseas and only 25% in the US ... i propose allowing a capital gain discount of only 25% of the regular discount for gains on the sale of this company's stock ... the "foreign labor percentage" would be published annually as a part of the company's financial statements and would be reported on any tax-related sale of stock paperwork ... the idea here would be to attract capital to companies that employ domestic labor and discourage investment from company's that export jobs ... both the company and the investor would be free to choose where they hire and where they invest but the tax code would encougage hiring US workers ...

and lastly, along the same line, company's not headquartered in the US, regardless of labor force composition, would not have their stock eligible for favorable capital gains treatment ... the "discount" would be eliminated completely ...

we're in a class war here regardless of what labels the Democratic Party seeks to nuance ... it's time we acted like warriors and started chopping off the heads (figuratively) of the aristocracy ...

[eallen]

3. Yeah, Soros really showed his influence, in helping defeat Bush.

Oh, wait. Bush is still president?! Someone wake me up from this nightmare!"

:evilgrin:

How about a compromise? Let's figure out how to limit the influence of corporations on politics.

[welshTerrier2]

6. "Let's figure out how to limit the influence of corporations on politics"

ok ... i'm waiting ...

how's McCain-Feingold working out so far? the oil companies seem to be doing just fine ... pharmaceuticals? they seem happy ... timber industry? ... they seem happy too ...

pretty much all our government's oversight agencies are controlled by mega-corporations ...

what would you do to reduce corporate influence?

[McKenzie]

7. The decline in energy supplies is an important factor

The theory of constant economic growth is predicated upon energy as a limitless resource. As we are starting to discover energy cannot be treated in quite the same way as either capital or labour. Both the latter are likely to remain constants; the energy inputs are diminishing all the time. Worse still, their cost is going to skyrocket and as it does the bubble will eventually burst.

Economies of some sort can undoubtedly exist outside of the current economic paradigms but the one we currently operate is just not sustainable. It cannot continue as it has done for several decades unless the energy inputs continue.

Anyway, that's tangential to your point. What I really want to say is something about a question we never ask ourselves. That question is "how much is enough?". It is taken as an article of faith that accumulation of wealth, to the point of obssession in some cases, is a good thing. A lot of people proceed with their lives on that premise but no-one has ever stopped and asked "is this really what life is about and what are the consequences for us as a society?" At least no mainstream politician has ever stood up and seriously challenged the premise.

Belief in constant material gain, even if it's not really necessary for keeping a roof over our heads, food in our bellies and a few of life's luxuries, is unhealthy. Now I am fully aware that many people will think I'm a New Age dreamer, totally out of touch, which is fine; everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, more and more people are starting to question this in a serious way and that can only be a good development. The way we live now hasn't created a fair, or a just, society. On the contrary it has lead us into a society that has created huge imbalances in the distribution of wealth. It's perfectly valid to claim that is inevitable but I disagree.

Human beings are moral creatures and those of us with brains apply ethical judgements to how we live. But, in a purely capitalist system, where pursuit of goods and services centres on getting the cheapest deal, morality goes out the window. It's for that reason kids were making Nike sports shoes in appalling conditions. Much more of the same sort of thing still takes place because we constantly seek the Holy Grail of the lowest price. Ergo, our moral capacity isn't allowed to enter the economic decision-making process and that negates us human beings. As I said, we are moral animals - greed is a really negative thing, but we are conditioned to believe otherwise.

This explains it much better than my rantings.

http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/Week-of-Mon-20041011/032112.html

[welshTerrier2]

9. nice post ...

perhaps if all our citizens somehow held values that instinctively placed a healthy respect for the important things in life above the blind acquisition of wealth, the problems i've highlighted would not be of much concern ... perhaps if we were all so noble that we would reach out to anyone in need and put the best interests of the country ahead of our own, we would not need to put limits on the competition for wealth and power ...

and is it always worth considering how our culture promotes, almost demands, the acquisition of wealth ... these are all important considerations regardless of how abstract they may appear to be ...

but even in criticizing the blind, soulless pursuit of massive wealth, i would not seek to limit such conduct unless and until the power commensurate with that wealth was abused ... if a man wants to eat corn until he explodes, i suppose that's his business ... but when he steals my corn to feed his greed, that's my business ... and when he demands that we all plant corn crops with engineered seeds that have to be bought only from him because he invented them and he holds a patent, it should be everyone's business ...

so, looking philosophically at "personal greed" is ultimately a very different consideration than looking at the effects of greed on others ... as a personal behavior, we should criticize it yet permit it ... as a corruption of our democratic institutions, we should not tolerate it ...

[McKenzie]

12. good stuff there too WT2...

did I ever say how much I love this place?

regards

[win_in_06]

8. Do they exert disproportionate influence because they are super wealty?

Or are they super wealthy because they exert a disproportionate influence?

Bill Gates? Ross Perot? The Kennedy Family?

[welshTerrier2]

10. the short answer is: yes ...

the goal is to break the cycle ...

[PeaceProgProsp]

19. Johnson, by the way, was ten times wealthier than Kennedy.

Johnson's net worth when he was VP was 100 million dollars (mostly from his TV stations and land in TX).

JFK was only worth 10 million, and, IIRC, most of that was from his share of the property he owned in Hyannis and elsewhere and from a stock portfolio.

[MellowOne]

14. Rich are getting richer....poor are getting poorer

Today on Oprah's Show, she did a piece on the poor in America. Thirty-seven million people in our country live below the poverty line. Some live the life of a third world country, some without running water, others living in cars or shelters. One piece of bad luck or misfortune can send people living from pay check to pay check into a downward spirl that can be impossible to get out. I couldn't believe the housing and living conditions of people in our own country. We need to come together as a nation to turn this problem around. Babies in a country as rich as America should not have to go to bed hungry and live with roaches or rats crawling on them during the night. This is not acceptable!

[BeFree]

15. Hey! Not until I'm Rich!!

Hehe. But ain't that the truth? Everybody wants to be rich. Or be free.

The wealth in this country rests in the hands of the masses. The masses could be richer, richer than any other mass in the history of mankind. But they all ready are, eh?

Some of us have more. Do they deserve to gain more and more, while some lose more and more? Do some have the right to stuff themselves silly, whilst others starve to death? Nah.

The political question is this: Should government produce actions that help those who have more, get more, while at the same time take a bit of the little that others have? If you're a democrat, you say No. If you are a republican you say: What harm can it do?

History shows revolutions have sprung up when too many thought government should help elites become even more elite. What harm can it do?

[welshTerrier2]

16. my goal in posting this ...

my goal in posting this was not to talk about a balancing of wealth but rather to talk about a restoration of a democracy that is truly of the people, by the people and for the people ... as you pointed out, we have become a government of the elites ...

the focus then is not so much on helping the poor (or not directly so) as it is on redistributing power to the masses ... one would hope that with a government not owned and controlled by corporations, reasonable benevolence would result ...

libertarians and capitalists jump in too quickly when you argue about redistribution of wealth; their case is not as easily made when the goal is a democratic distribution of power ...

[Armstead]

18. Very True....We should have realized this about 30 years ago

America has passively witnessed one of the greatest transfers of wealth and power over the last 30 years.

If we don;t wake up to that reality real soon, the good ol' USA is going to go to hell in a handbasket.

[Jamison]

21. I agree.

The disparity of wealth in this country now is so great that I don't think anything short of a complete Marxist-type revolution would reverse it.

[Mountainman]

22. I have not trouble with there being super rich so long as they don't have

a negative effect on social justice. Many wealthy people are progressives.

If we believe in democracy, I don't think we can have a government that limits wealth. It is unconstitutional and we all know what is wrong with majority opinion when it restricts the rights of the minority.

It is a two edge sword. We can't take away someone's constitutional rights just because we feel they are "too" wealthy.

The only revolution I can see is an over through of our government, the elimination of the constitution and bill of rights and have a socialist, communist style of rule. I don't want to live in that kind of country.

In the universe good exists side by side with bad, the ugly exists with the beautiful, and likewise the wealthy side by side with the non wealthy. That is how I see it.

[welshTerrier2]

23. massive wealth is constitutionally protected ??

i don't think the constitution addresses how much wealth citizens can amass nor do i think it addresses how much tax the government can levy to achieve its objectives ...

as for the only kind of revolution would result in socialism or communism, how about a revolution that restores our democracy in a manner consistent with the constitution ... after all, the constitution did not provide for corporate personhood, did it?

how do you propose to limit the corrupting influence of corporations ... saying that the bad and the ugly should exist side by side is no excuse not to fight for the restoration of democracy in this country ...

[Mountainman]

25. Personally I deal with what is in front of me to deal with.

I am a controller of a medical corporation. My job is to find ways to be profitable with what we get paid by insurance companies and Medicare and Medicaid.

Our corporation does not harm social justice. I try to get the best wages I can for the people who work here.

In my way I am bringing about the changes that I think need to be made within the system.

It seems no matter what extreme you are on, the right or the left, the same tactics are used to try and over come the other.

[Solon]

27. No one has the right to be rich...

Show me where in the constitution it says that, please, I would love to see it.

[whatever4]

29. The right to be rich?

Doesn't that depend, really, on how we define rich?

Compared to many other nations, most of us ARE rich, rich beyond their wildest imaginations. Me? I get to eat every day, each and every day, there is food, we never starve. House? Yeah, and it has heat and cooling too. In fact, it's my greatest lifes achievement, this house. I feel rich to have it, and for me that isn't an exageration.

What is rich? What is are our real common needs, and isn't the complete lack of focus on that where we have the real problem?

I have to see, in many of these discussions, I see a trend to believe all our problems are really caused by the rich. The rich are too rich. The wealthy too selfish.

I don't believe that to be the case. I think, even if we took all the money from all the rich people, it wouldn't help our government one bit. With a corrupt government, there will NEVER be enough money. So what's the point? There's never going to be enough if it isn't managed in the first place, and if all we focus on is getting MORE money, we're completely missing the problem.

You know, it's easy to talk, talk is cheap. To talk about the wealthy, as if we aren't them, just because some people have more, it's easy to forget how WE would feel if WE were one of "them". But, remember, in all reality, you ARE one of them, because we ARE wealthy. Rich beyond imagination.

So, if you really believe in fairness and distribution of wealthy, you'll fairly well sell everything you have and live in a tent.

Or, for some of the Katrina victims, I guess it's already happened. So, what are any of us doing on here using electricity? See, it all depends on your point of view. Look outside the United States for a second, and realize, we're most of us a bunch of greedy bastards. Or, maybe most of us are doing the best we fcan. None of us really shares enough, because we see people every day that have barely enough to live, but is it constructive to blame the ultra wealthy in this nation for how we little wealthy ones live by choice? If we all gave it all away, as we seem to be discussing the wealthy doing, none of us would be talking right now.

Thank you for all these interesting discussions, and, sorry I'm not up to speed to talk about economics at the same level. My very basic knowledge, it only goes so far. I differ from many libertarians who believe, flat out, that we should not have taxes or social programs. But, when one depends on the church for charity, isn't one admitting to social needs for the poor? If the public wants social programs, it ought to HAVE social programs. I think where we get all messed up is forcing taxes, because while people will support a program, they don't want to increase the taxes over it. I think, my very humble opinion, that enough people would contribute by choice, and that enough wealthy would as well, because there are JUST as many well intentioned wealthy as there are not. Especially those that came by their money by working hard. Many of them DO care about the less fortunate. Just like us.

So maybe, just maybe, the huge savings we'd see if we threw out the laws and the many, many mountains of paperwork and lawyers, we'd save money. We'd save money if all we had to do was collect it. We'd pay money if we could see how it was spent. We'd be business mecca, we'd support the businesses that in turn supported the community, and unethical businesses wouldn't have a damned THING to do with our government, no "extra" vote, nothing. Poof. That's what I want. Poof gone, out of government, make your money yourself, no tax "breaks" or special legislature for YOU Mr friggin Walmart.

It might sound daft, to depend on public consumption to rule how well a business does, to promote the more ethical tax-paying businesses over others, but, in busiess it's the only power we have. We can enact laws, and, then they find ways to get around them. And then, it's a whole nother business in itself, getting around paying. Wipe it out. Wipe out that incentive to cheat the law. Put that power to promote ethical businsses in OUR hands. Take business OUT of government.

Privitization? Next time, let's try real privitization, with ethical companies that WANT to play by the rules, that have a HISTORY of playing by the rules, that SHOW a vested interest in following the law. Like...Oprah. Anyone think she rips us off? No. Just the opposite, she's shown herself to have genuine interest in people less well off, and she expends effort in that direction. She has a proven track record of, though she could be interested in nothing but money, has different interests and is civic minded. Likely, she would never rip any of us off, I don't see it happening. Why didn't folks like her get privitization? Are there no companies that ethical? I say, there are. They werne't given a chance. By OUR government.

It was who they hired. No more cronies. Not those that have a history with the government officals involved, NOT those with a history of corruption. That wasn't privitization at all. It was legal theft of tax dollars. They aren't "surprised" when businesses like Enron do what they did; they fairly well expected it. How could they not? Ripping the people off was a DONE deal when they made the deal. That wasn't privitization by any stretch. Nothing private about it. Money to friends isn't a private interest, unless I'm badly mistaken.

hey, thanks for anyone that read this :)

[Solon]

31. You didn't answer the question...

yes our nation is the richest on the planet, thanks to us inhabiting a large swath of a continent that was rich in natural resources, and depopulated, severely, by both artificial and natural means, like smallpox blankets, and small wars against a largely disorganized people. Not to mention the oppression of them as well. This includes our living between two large oceans that separated us from the bigger boys on the block, so much so, that they found wars against us were too damn expensive, even if we started them, last time we were successfully invaded was 1812 for crying out loud. This includes the lack of real powers in this hemisphere, in our entire history, there hasn't been one that truly threatened us, until the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Since the end of the 19th century, the US Government had a general foreign policy of basically highway robbery of Central and South American countries. This is what enriched our corporations and economy, the basic principle for our economy was "If its good for GM its good for America". Our foreign policy has not changed that much in the past hundred years, just a new bogeyman for us to flog every twenty years or so, most popular are leftists, of course. Our biggest changes are in domestic policies, as to who this robbed wealth was handed to. Depending on the administrations, it was either the very wealthy, or the middle class. Sometimes even the poor, but by and large, with few exceptions, like FDR or Johnson, they are usually ignored.

Our problems are twofold, first, the Military is basically a branch of the Larger American Corporation, a strong arm man for an extortion racket of an epic scale. Second is that, in league with this organization, we have these same people who wish to enrich themselves at the expense of the lower classes within the country as well. This was put into sharp relief with Katrina, there are citizens in this nation, the Richest nation in the history of the world, that live in poverty that equals that of the poorest nations of the world. This is simply an ugly truth, but what can we say about it, unlike political freedoms, economic "freedom" is a zero-sum game, in order for one to be enriched, another must be made poorer, its a simple truth, yet one that we cannot face. There is only so much wealth to be acquired in this world, no matter how it is measured, whether in land, gold, or oil, it doesn't matter, its still limited. Soon enough, the currency will be fresh water, then things will get REAL ugly.

The question is, where is government in all of this? And a better question is, how are we the people, who theoretically chooses the government, to stop this travesty from continuing. The thing that annoys me most about most things here on this board is this. For some reason, all problems started with Bush, and will end with him, or his party at least. This is a falsehood, yes, Iraq, and many of the problems of the past 4 years are problems that begin and end with him, but, Iraq isn't the first country we invaded seize its oil, and it probably won't be the last. Its a systematic problem, that permeates both parties, and one that exposes all of us to not only economic poverty, but also moral poverty and breaches in national security.

So, the debate isn't centered on whether the problem even exists, we are well past that, the problem is recognized, at least partially, now we must find solutions, not just solutions that are palatable to the richest 2% of the country, but ones that are preferred to the remaining 98%.

[whatever4]

43. in order for one to be enriched, another must be made poorer,

Wow, that's another great post, you're really making me think!

"in order for one to be enriched, another must be made poorer, "
I debate the truth of that. I guess it depends on what you mean by enriched. Does it mean we all ought to live in mansions, and does it mean my life is "unfair" if I only live in a house while other people, some small percentage of the total, live in a mansion? That's what I get from that. I don't believe it has to be one made poorer to enrich the other. I'd be just fine if the rich would just stay in their mansions, and quit trying to slit our collective throats in so many insidious ways. I don't care if someone has so much "more" than I do. I only care if I have enough, as I perceive enough. House verses mansion is enough. Tent verses mansion? Not so good. I don't think tent is a fair lowest common denominator for people. But, if I had my way with taxes and government...shelter would be. I just can't stand it, we throw away stuff people could use, public buildings not used for homeless, and were I accidentally to wind up in that position? I'd think it was pretty hopeless of my free nation to leave that way. I wish, if I had one, that everyone had a warm, or cool...temperate place for shelter. I hate it that tax dollars are spent on so many other things instead. It's wrong. It's not what "we the people" want, whether it's a libertarian ideal or NOT. If it's what we want, we ought to HAVE it. Screw pretty light lamp posts. Make some shelters. That's how I feel.

Heck, I even trained in Biloxi, many moons ago, as so many military people did, and to say "what if" had we been down there, in my case, is only a stretch in years, and not in circumstances. You know what I mean? I still have pictures, pine cones, I remember driving by those old houses on the coast, fed some seagulls one time. I know a lot of other people have to be just like me in this.

I don't disagree with your history. The more I learn, the more I hate being white, and it sounds dumb, I know, but for those hurricanes. Oh man. Feel like a dilettante maybe.

"Our problems are twofold, first, the Military is basically a branch of the Larger American Corporation, a strong arm man for an extortion racket of an epic scale."
Yes, but it's under civilian control. Again, it's a problem of representation. They're using our tax dollars and our troops and our national name to carry on a war. For profit.

"Second is that, in league with this organization, we have these same people who wish to enrich themselves at the expense of the lower classes within the country as well. "
In that I agree. They've taken over government. Business interests and politics that have ANYTHING but being about the good of the people or justice.

"This was put into sharp relief with Katrina, there are citizens in this nation, the Richest nation in the history of the world, that live in poverty that equals that of the poorest nations of the world. This is simply an ugly truth, but what can we say about it"
No disagreement on that. Like I said, my family was separated from that disaster by years, not by circumstance. Could have just as easily been us, though I'd have likely gotten us out early, we'd have lost a lot, and for all that, getting out easily to a good place wasn't a guarantee no matter how early the people left.

", unlike political freedoms, economic "freedom" is a zero-sum game, in order for one to be enriched, another must be made poorer, its a simple truth, yet one that we cannot face. "
I don't agree with that. I agree it happens, frequently, but I don't believe it's due to economics. I blame politics for that too. Greed, and people using legal means to facilitate their greed. Only an unsuccessfully thief wants to get caught, and what better way to not get caught than to change the rules? I think where we disagree, and it's a point I don't think I deal well with, is what is economic freedom? Is it freedom to do anything you want for profit, forgetting the law? Freedom to do anything you want to do for profit, within the law? That's why I believe the law is so susceptible; they change the law. Rich criminals get inside the law, inside government, and where they couldn't side step the law, or got caught at it, they managed to change the law to suit their own needs. Politics.

If we'd have held to our constitution, which included free and available voting, government staying out of the news business, and representatives actually representing the wills and needs of their constituency (bankruptcy laws? please) the environmental laws could not have been changed. Not if there'd been one bit of interest in the common good. It's too easy to see, and it's been done too many times for too many industries. Politics.

"There is only so much wealth to be acquired in this world, no matter how it is measured, whether in land, gold, or oil, it doesn't matter, its still limited. Soon enough, the currency will be fresh water, then things will get REAL ugly."
Now, on that, I agree, it gets complicated. I think we would have enough resources, if they were used MUCH more wisely. And plus, our lifestyles have to change, because they're unsupportable and that's just all there is to it. I mean, we all know it's going to change, contemporary American lifestyle, whether we want it to or not. Just a question of how well we move on. And, I guess as you point out, whether or not everyone does move on. Will the resources we need to live be squandered by all of us or bought, saved and hoarded by a small wealthy elite? Shoot, I know just enough about the Irish potato famine to say, yes, it could happen that way.

Now, how to fix that, I don't know. I fear, with this government, or as you say, about any other we've seen recently, they might not be any better than the Potato Famine. Legal to keep rivers and lakes inaccessible to starving people, because they weren't public properties. Legal to insist on them still "paying" taxes when they didn't even have food. yes, I agree, things could get very bad. And it's happened before. If it comes down to water? I have a feeling it won't be shared any more equally than those fish were shared with the Irish. The Irish starved.

"The question is, where is government in all of this? "
At some point, they'll just be pointing guns at all of us to keep us away from the food storage facilities, but, we both know that.

"And a better question is, how are we the people, who theoretically chooses the government, to stop this travesty from continuing."
I wish I knew. My libertarian brain has no answer for that in todays America.

" The thing that annoys me most about most things here on this board is this. For some reason, all problems started with Bush, and will end with him, or his party at least. This is a falsehood, yes, Iraq, and many of the problems of the past 4 years are problems that begin and end with him, but, Iraq isn't the first country we invaded seize its oil, and it probably won't be the last. Its a systematic problem, that permeates both parties, and one that exposes all of us to not only economic poverty, but also moral poverty and breaches in national security."
I agree with you completely with that. I think BushCo is the worst, likely Dems will win next. What bothers me is, I don't think they're going to have to work for it. At all. On a silver platter, here's your win; we hate them...all you have to do is stand there. What will they do? Some of them have already been going along with the programs, and programs, and programs, all along. So, I'm pessimistic.


So, the debate isn't centered on whether the problem even exists, we are well past that, the problem is recognized, at least partially, now we must find solutions, not just solutions that are palatable to the richest 2% of the country, but ones that are preferred to the remaining 98%.
For this, I want to say, the debate does not dispute that there are problems, but we do disagree as to the exact definition of what is causing the problems. I think. Lack of representation? Basically?

And I agree, knowing the extreme disparity between the "of the people, by the people" elite who are being represented, and those many, most others of us who are not being represented, it almost seems like they've already "won". What to do about it? If voting is compromised, and even then, too many elected officials seem to be merely part of some practically royal lineage establishment of government, it's hard to apply, for me, any standard. Politics? But...they're criminals. Lack of representatives? But we elected them. Sorta. We think. Probably most of them. Probably? Except the president, of course. These people have the clout to make it all happen, apparently, and how to fix that politically? I just don't see how we can, if we can't vote.

[welshTerrier2]

44. prioritizing the remedies ...

interesting post, whatever4 ... you've identified many of the problems i'm trying to address ...

allow me to restate that my objectives do NOT seek to make all Americans equal on an economic strata ... and i see my calls for capping wealth as an unfortunate but necessary last resort ... ideally, i would strongly prefer to have a system of government that provided as much freedom to every individual as possible ... ideally, we could have our cake and eat it too ... ideally, massive wealth and real democracy could co-exist ...

sadly, and you've acknowledged the problem in much of what you wrote, that is just not the reality ... so, we then identify a problem, i.e. poor governance, and we search for solutions ...

and some solutions have been offered ... if i've understood you correctly, you seem to place your focus on "better representation" ... i assume this to mean that we somehow need to elect people who will serve the people's interests rather than be subject to corruption from lobbyists and corporate monies and support ...

the question then is posed as to how to achieve better representation ... are we selecting poor leaders? do we fail to punish those with their greedy paws in the cookie jar? do we improve citizen oversight of our elected representatives? do we pass new laws requiring more detailed disclosure of the interactions between legislators and "special interests"? do we modify our election laws to temper the influx of big money? do we reform our election laws to give free time to all candidates so that money is not needed to speak to the public?

there are many efforts that have already been made and many more that can be tried to attempt to resolve the corrupting influence of money on our elected officials ...

and i, for one, would be willing to try any and all rational approaches to finding a remedy ... the question i would continue to ask you and others is, is there any limit to which we should not go to protect our democracy?

my answer is that there should be no limits set on achieving this objective ... and i would suggest that any proposed remedies start with the ones that are least invasive ... again, the ideal would be to allow each and every American the maximum amount of freedom ... what could be more of a Libertarian theme than that?

so we compile a list of possible remedies ... none is guaranteed to solve the problem but all are targeting the same objective: better government ...

perhaps we begin with something as innocuous as campaign disclosure reports that require candidates to disclose the sources of their funding ... and perhaps we ban corporate contributions to candidates ... whatever ... the idea is that we make a list and we prioritize the proposed remedies from least invasive to highly invasive ...

now, in the highly invasive category, i include such remedies as capping wealth and even revolution to "crush the aristocracy" ... i love the Jefferson quote another poster provided below:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson (1816)"

to repeat, these are "freedom restricting austere measures" ... they should only be applied if less invasive remedies have not or are not able to adequately protect the people's halls of government from the corrupting influence of big money ... this is not a call for socialism or communism of any other "ism"; it is a call to take back our democracy ...

and i freely acknowledge that, like other efforts that have failed, this too might fail ... but the critical point is that anything short of success is unacceptable ... allowing "special interests" to buy themselves a government should never be tolerated and when one remedy fails, others MUST be tried ... if ultimately we are forced to guillotine those in the the aristocracy who bribe our elected officials and guillotine the elected officials who cater to them, so be it ... there can be no alternative to insisting on a government of the people, for the people and by the people ... that's what the American revolution was fought for; that's what we must fight for ...

btw, as a final point, truly the most desirable remedy would be an awakened citizenry that remained vigilant about safeguarding their democracy ... ideally, we would not need many of the remedies mentioned above if Americans had a real passion to educate themselves on the issues and actively participated in the governance of the country ... an energized, vigilant, knowledgeable electorate would be an excellent safeguard against the influx of dollars into our political processes and our government ... the harsh remedies i advocate are sadly based on the belief that our citizens, for whatever reason, seem to take their democracy for granted ... as long as this remains the state of affairs and as long as we are unable to awaken them, i'm afraid harsher, institutionalized remedies like the capping of wealth may be necessary ...

[whatever4]

45. I think what worries people about change

Is that they're afraid any change, just any change, will be designed to hurt them, to further less represent them. Problem is, recent history shows them to be correct. It's SO hard when you can't really trust the representative to respond to concerns. I think it's gone a long way toward making this subversion of our government happen, the more these reps, of all kinds, were allowed a free hand, the more it became habit to abuse it.

I get really scared when I hear talk like that, because not only is a civil war the worst, but, we're already is such a bad place, in so many ways, those kind of serious conflicts, not only do they scare me, but they scare me because so much else is already happening. Who to trust, the government? It will be a lot to ask, for a long time, for that kind of trust. Even for me, for ideas like this, to recoup resources from ultra wealthy? Can't possibly touch me, but it worries the hell out of me.

What bothers me is, who decided it all then? If the worst happened,

"harsher, institutionalized remedies like the capping of wealth may be necessary ..."

Then...who will make the decisions then? We still need representation, still need government. If there is to be harsher remedies, that's what bothers me. Before even that can work...we've got to have representation for it to be in any way fair. Have to fix the representation problem first, or, even after we redistribute everything (and I know, you didn't say that, but along those lines of recouping resources from elite hoarders), even after we do that, we won't be any better off. Just won't be any better off.

[welshTerrier2]

46. we have no choice ... we must act and act boldly ...

any movement for change and social justice will inevitably have leaders ... i hear you asking the question: but what if those leaders themselves are corrupt ... and i hear you asking: any leadership is subjective ... what gives them the right to decide ...

well, that's a perfect "you can't get there from here" call to never fight for change ... it's paralyzing by its own definition ... we can't fight evil because we, ourselves, might be evil ...

suppose those who fought in the Revolutionary War accepted that standard ... yeah, King George is a tyrant but just who the hell do these "Founding Father" guys think they are ???

these are very dangerous times for this country ... big money has a stranglehold on our government ... the concerns you raise about those who push hard for reform may have merit but we have no choice but to push ahead and push as hard as we can to bring about change ...

i see a country at great risk ... our treasury is bankrupt ... we are at war with the world ... we have alienated our natural allies with our arrogance and our imperialism ... global warming threatens life on the planet while Big Oil refuses to allow conservation measures or alternative fuel sources ... massive, competitive economies are emerging and resources to fuel our gluttonous lifestyles will be harder and harder to come by ... and perhaps worst of all, Americans have lost faith in their own government ...

before progress can be made, we have to regain control of our democracy ... could you be right that we will select the wrong players or the wrong remedies? sure ... but sitting still and cautiously questioning the status quo without taking bold action against it is a choice we can no longer afford to make ... it is time to act and it is time to act boldly ...

[whatever4]

48. But those bold actions, they're what get people killed

and in the end, after all the carnage, everyone still has to come to an accord. It doesn't really solve anything.

No, we need to fix the issue with representation, I keep coming back to that.

"well, that's a perfect "you can't get there from here" call to never fight for change ... it's paralyzing by its own definition ... we can't fight evil because we, ourselves, might be evil ...

suppose those who fought in the Revolutionary War accepted that standard ... yeah, King George is a tyrant but just who the hell do these "Founding Father" guys think they are ???"

Yes, I see what you're saying, and at certain point, if we continue along this path, we will most certainly wind up there. Representatives that don't represent us, and that still remain in office. While our shared resources, ie taxes, are not used for what we said, by law, we said we wanted it used for. It boils down to the same situation; taxation without representation. Power in hands that misuse it, and, if we can't vote them out, we've got a problem.

In the end, I don't see how we're really saying anything different; the problem is, the real definition of the problem is, our representatives, and the vote.

No, I don't have a bold answer, or any other kind of answer. Unfortunately. America, and Americans, seem determined to plod down this destructive path. I don't know how anyone can sit in this nation right now and not feel the EXACT way we feel. I don't understand it. I don't see how it has continued to go this far, even if it is turning around now, I don't see how so many were swayed. So, I just don't have an answer. I just hope any answers that happen don't tear us further apart that all the bad times coming are sure to do.

I just know, as a gen babyboomer, I'm really not proud of my entire generation. This got up and going, for the most part, 20 some odd years ago, and that puts it squarely on the shoulders of the boomers. Shame on us. I'm ashamed it took me so long to understand it, and I don't have an excuse either. How all these other braniacs don't get it, I have NO idea, I'm dumb as a doorknob in politics and law, and if I can get it, no one with any kind of polysci or economics degree or background should have fallen for these self-serving racist monopoly-loving creeps. I'm almost afraid of what solution my peers might propose. You know?

[Totally Committed]

32. How about this:

Being wealthy should not have the power it does. And, that wealth, under the guise of "corporatism" should never be allowed to doom a whole section of our society to poverty.

In the richest country on earth, there is no reason why anyone should go to bed hungry, not get equally educated, have the best health care, have access to the same prescription drugs as the wealthy do, not live in comfort and safety, or have to decide between heating their homes or feeding their kids.

Having money, in itself, is not evil. What most of those who are wealthy do with that money, or to make more of that money often is. That has to stop. And we have to find people to elect who have the balls to vote for programs that will make it not only easier to get out of poverty and live a good, decent life, but also harder for those with great wealth to weild the kind of power that oppresses any of the people.

[welshTerrier2]

37. "we have to find people to elect"

hi TC ... thanks for your recent PM ...

i agree that, in itself, money is not an evil ... but, in empowering corporations in our society, we have built an entity, i.e. corporations, blind to societal needs by definition ... while corporations and the people who run them and invest in them are not inherently evil, their stated purpose is selfish by definition and that, in itself, is an evil ...

i'm afraid that given the realities of our culture that finding good people to elect will not ultimately be an adequate remedy ... we Americans do not seem to understand that real democracy requires eternal vigilance ... we can barely get most Americans to vote let alone safeguarding their democracy each and every day ... absent the essential vigilance, corrupting forces quickly seep into our institutions of power ... and most corrupting of all is big money often further strengthened through the corporate vehicle ...

the "beheading of the aristocracy" is necessary because i believe all other remedies have failed or will fail ... too much money and too much power combined with innate human greed has proven too difficult for us to regulate and our democracy has been weakened as a result ...

i should note that these harsh measures do not absolutely have to be a first step ... i also call for all the usual remedies: campaign finance reform and other electoral reforms, restrictions on lobbyists, media reforms etc ... i'm happy to accommodate my "liberal" friends who see my calls for capping wealth as extreme ... "let's try it your way first" i tell them ...

but their way always fails ... Washington is drowning in corporate control ... it's drowning in lobbyists ... it's drowning in money ... the people's voice is too often heard and then ignored ... so my contract offer is to start with less harsh measures than the restriction on wealth ... try everything ... i don't seek to deprive anyone of massive wealth as an end in itself ... we should encourage maximum freedom ...

but when these measures fail, and they will fail, we must all agree on the goal and we must agree to impose restraints to whatever degree is necessary to achieve it ... the goal is a better democracy dedicated to serving the peoples' interests over the interests of a "special" few; to achieve it, again, we can start small but we have to be prepared to restrict wealth if we are unable to purge it from the halls of our government ...

[Totally Committed]

39. It was just a thought...

By and large, given what I see in America today, we are mostly in agreement (as usual!)

I meant what I said in my PM, too. You are aces with me.

[welshTerrier2]

41. thanks, TC ...

you're too kind ...

[Leftest]

38. I think the same about it as this guy did....

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson (1816)

[welshTerrier2]

40. great quote ...

welcome to DU, leftest !!

it's always amazing when you post words like Jefferson's that one of the common reactions is to label you a socialist or a communist ... the capitalist propagandists have been very effective is separating Americans from their heritage and the counsel of the idealists who founded this country ...

[Leftest]

63. Thank You welshTerrier2

Sorry for the delay in my response. After posting above, I had company knocking at my door (friends from work) :)

I am glad that there is a DU.. I think all you guys/gals are great..

[Totally Committed]

54. That is so good, I just took it as my signature line! n/t

[welshTerrier2]

56. you Jeffersonian socialist !!! n/t

[Leftest]

62. "We The PEOPLE"

:)

n/t

[shance]

50. Great points. I think anything in extremes causes an imbalance

where everyone loses in the end.

Seems to me its a basic truth of cause and effect.

[KT2000]

51. Capitalism & Democracy

are actually incompatible. Therefore, laws must be enacted to protect....what?? I think that is the basic question. The RW wants to protect capitalism above all else. They believe that democracy is there to protect capitalsim.

Personally, I want to see democracy protected. I see our economic system as separate and therefore in need of regulation so it does not strangle our democracy. "Purchased democracy" is no democracy.

It will be a fight between those two camps for as long as this country exists.

[Red Knight]

52. great post

I agree with you.

However, I can't see this country ever getting to a point where wealth is restricted in any way. Look at the uproar whenever there is a suggestion that the wealthy should pay more taxes. MOst of that gets twisted into this meme the right has created of taxes being a government attack on everyone.

But it's very obvious that the wealthy have much more power and influence than any American over any political process. In a sense we already have lost real democracy.

This also ties into the society of consumption we live in and greed--an attack on the environment that supports our very lives, and yet getting America to sit up and pay attention is hard enough--much less support any action.

I see the growing gap between rich and poor just growing while the powerful push social or religious buttons on the very poor so that they vote against even their own interests.

This country is truly headed toward a dark place, and it's happening faster than anyone suspected it could. I'm in my 40s and I see a pretty lousy life experience for my later years--but I really feel for my kids. Their future is just too horrible to contemplate.

And as Princess Amadelia in Star Wars said: "This is how liberty dies--with thunderous applause."

So true.

So sad.

[welshTerrier2]

53. preparing the soil and planting some seeds ...

welcome to DU, Red Knight !!!

i expect you will find many kindred souls here ...

you wrote: "However, I can't see this country ever getting to a point where wealth is restricted in any way."

i have no basis to disagree with you ... but still we must discuss the idea among those who are most likely to be at least partially receptive to it ... we are light years from preparing the soil we'll need before this becomes a viable alternative ...

and nothing will grow if we don't at least try to plant some seeds ...

[renie408]

55. Can we start this after I win the lottery? Its up to $290 million

and I fully intend to win that sucker this weekend.

[mmonk]

57. What one person has in wealth

doesn't take away from another. Conversely, programs to help the poor doesn't take away from the wealthy. Maximizing potential is what brings wealth. The more everybody has, the better off all are.

[mmonk]

58. And to add,

a vibrant and true democracy is determined throught the guarantee of rights and equal protection under the law and real representation in government.

[welshTerrier2]

59. "Maximizing potential is what brings wealth."

but when the distribution of wealth, from whatever ebb and flow may bring it about (i.e. fair or unfair), results in a severe skewing, democracy has always suffered as a result ...

the goal is not to oppose wealth or even, as an end in itself, to restrict the amassing of wealth in any way ... the goal is to ensure that each citizen is given an equal opportunity to influence the direction of the government ...

when wealth becomes grossly disproportionate, influence on the government grows grossly disproportionate as well ... any redress of these inequities is more than welcomed ... but in the end, i see no likelihood that anything short of capping maximum wealth will succeed ...

so, i have no disagreement with your statement that "The more everybody has, the better off all are." although one might make a philosophical argument that "less is better" for a happier life ... but the goal of capping wealth should not be to deprive citizens of having more; it should be to ensure that all citizens are valued equally by those that govern ... tinkering with various other reforms has failed miserably and we live in a country that falls far short of the ideals on which the country was founded ...

[mmonk]

61. I don't think restricting income

on the wealthy does any particular good. I think lifting wages from the bottom is the way. Also, I don't think this is about democracy-I think its about social justice. Democracy in our country is corrupted by influence (monied). A true democracy is one that doesn't allow influence.

[anaxarchos]

60. Who says "Democracy" restricts "rights" to only the political...

and juridical realms while leaving all economic issues to "private tyranny"? That's only in America and only because the U.S. Constitution was among the first. Take a look at the French Revolution: Constitution of 1789 - mainly a statement of the Rights of Man and legislative democracy. Constitution of 1793 - a restatement of those rights PLUS the first set of economic Rights starting with PROGRESSIVE taxation (expressed as a Right).

Almost all of the European Constitutions deriving from the "democratic revolutions" of 1848, recognize economic rights as human rights in the sense of what today would be a RIGHT to a job, health care, security in infirmity, education, etc.

What else can the "Right" to Life, Liberty, etc. possibly mean in the real world?