On 6/4/2009 12:09 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
He also was against the Party system, fearing that any political party
would eventually become an entity that exists to perpetuate itself,
rather than to benefit the People.
Looks like he was right, based on the Democrat and Republican parties.
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:09:15 -0400, " email@example.com"
I think you recall incorrectly. A recent Ellis bio is titled,"His
Excellency, George Washington" [or something like that] - but he was
known as "His Excellency" when he was the General of the Army.
When the title for presidency was first discussed, and Washington was
president, Adams' suggestion was "His Highness, the president of the
United States and Protector of the Rights of the same" - Washington
chose 'President of the United States.' and further designated that
Mr. President was title enough.
Thomas Jefferson said My reading of history convinces me that most
bad government results from too much government. My general
understanding of TJ is that, with a few exceptions, he believed that
Government shouldn't be involved in micromanagement of its citizens and
Of course, one's personal philosophy will color how such writings are
Their grand experiment HAS stood the test of time, yes. But how much
resemblance does it bear to the ideals they had in mind when the framed
the Constitution? In my mind, its a cursory resemblance. Sure, better
than most places in the world, but IMO, that's in spite of what we've
done to our country since WWII.
Corporations - and citizens - rely on voluntary contracts. But there must be
SOME enforcement mechanism. The only businesses that have the wherewithal to
enforce these contracts themselves are Mafia-related. To the extent these
contracts need enforcement, governments were created. Therefore, governments
exist to SERVE corporations (and business), not to suppress them.
In, I think, the late 1300's, when merchants began trading extensively,
piracy sprang up. A group of merchants in England equipped some ships with
weapons to deal with the pirates BUT they gave these ships to the crown!
Thus begun the British Navy.
The only mention of business I can find in the Constitution are: The right
of contract shall be enforced and monopolies are encouraged (patents and
Governments or every sort were around long before modern corporations
came into existence, and corporations (or similar entities that
conducted business and had legal rights) have been around since
antiquity as well.
It's not a "which came first - the chicken or the egg?" thing. It's
more like the two forms grew and overlapped and became concerned in
each others' affairs.
Pirates have been around since people took to boats.
I mean you are only off by a few thousand years, minimum, and stealing
predates recorded history as does travel by boat.
I haven't bothered reading most of this thread, but I hope your
'facts' are more thoroughly researched. An opinion based on bad facts
is almost always a bad opinion.
Exactly my point. A neat book on the subject is "Systems of Belief" in which
the author contrasted the "Commercial" mindset vs. the "Guardian" mindset.
The two operate way differently and we really have to beware applying the
techniques of one to the provinces of the other.
For example, bonuses, commissions, and quotas do not work well in government
(such as in traffic enforcement), or, more recently, the president's plan to
implement a "wage czar" to regulate executive pay. Likewise, secrecy,
deceit, and distrust don't work well in business.
Possibly the worst thing one can do is believe expertise in one arena
translates to the other. That is, don't EVER vote for someone who touts his
success in business as a qualifying factor for elective office.
As long as business supplies what customers want, there is
no need for "enforcement mechanism". Go to a flea market
sometime. You'll see a good example of suppliers providing
what customers want. Works nicely.
What if the vendor doesn't have the proper apprenticeship, union membership,
business license, bonding, or insurance or the customer has not obtained the
proper plans, permits, inspections, or zoning approval?
We're all gonna die, that's what will happen.
Private enterprise creates wealth; governments destroy wealth.
The commercial mindset depends upon voluntary contracts and eschews force.
Unfortunately, governments must exist to compel compliance with these
voluntary contracts - as such, governments are a cost of doing business
(like giving away paper bags). The only private business that has the
wherewithal to compel compliance is the Mafia.
As for corporations enriching themselves, they don't. They don't take the
money and put it in a mattress or destroy it, they use it to create jobs and
more wealth. It is governments that do the equivalent of burning money.
There is almost nothing that private enterprise can't do cheaper than a
government. Military? Most wars have been fought by mercenaries or militias.
If we need an army, we could hire one. Police? There are FAR more private
security guards in my city than cops. Fire protection? 85% of America's fire
fighters are volunteers. And what has any branch of government ever done
regarding bubble-baths or bee-bites?
Even Walmart (according to one study funded by Walmart) has done more to
improve the standard of living for lower and middle-class people than all
the government programs combined (food stamps, AFDC, Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). "...Wal-Mart saved American consumers $236
billion in 2004, or $2,239 for the average American household..."
Heck, just today, a study was released showing the presence of a Walmart
reduces obesity among its patrons!
No, as George Will once said: "Government should protect the borders and
deliver the mail. When they prove competent at those tasks, we might trust
them with something else."
And I am a space alien from planet Zorgon!
Typing something in a usenet* forum does not automatically make it true.
*Usenet, running over the Internet, which evolved from ARPANET, which was
created at the request of,
and funded by... the US government.
That would be all cute and nice except for all of the pirates in the
banking/investment sector who recently demonstrated what greed due to
lack of regulation can do.
And it is ironic that most of the people who need to "save money at
walmart" need to do so because walmart was a major player in the loss of
their previous good jobs because they demanded lower and lower prices
from their suppliers causing most to go off shore.
Of course, all those banks that were handing out mortgages to people
who couldn't afford them were doing so because the Government told them to.
Again, follow the train a bit further... things are cheaper to
produce overseas because the US government makes it more expensive to do
Why do you think GM failed? GM's profit margin is so much smaller
than the competitions because of government regulation. And that's
before you even get into the price impact that unions have.
demonstrate that they are
willing to write loans for "disadvantaged groups" (minorities etc.) as much as
groups. They had two options to do this: write more high-risk loans to members
groups, or write fewer loans to members of non-disadvantaged groups. Because
the first option was
more profitable (short-term), that's what they chose, and now we've seen the
Honda, Nissan...) have
factories and offices in the USA and therefore are subject to exactly the SAME
regulations as the
"domestic" makes. That is of course in addition to the vehicles they sell
having to meet all the
same regulatory standards such as safety, emissions, and MPG. So in that way,
the playing field is
The unions, which HAVE had a crippling effect on the domestic auto industry, of
course are not part
of the government. It's not hard to see that if the industry had been more
regulated by the
government, the unions would not have gained as much power and the picture might
be very different
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.