Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The way to do that change is through the constitutional ammendment process, not declaring that the commerce clause allows the feds to regulate what you do in your house.

Of course, they would also mean the current US government would get a say as to what's in the constitution, which might be worse.

...It's in the Constitution that the government gets a say as to what goes in the Constituion. THey can always try at least.

I'm much more in favor of keeping the SUpreme Court doing its job of keeping an eye on the Constitution, deciding what's Constituional and what's not. They are much more flexible than the ammendment process when it comes to keeping interpretations of the Constitution up to date.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Yes, but the hangup is in the "the law" part. Many Libertarians seem to think that we need no or almost no laws controlling or regulating anything, despite history demonstrating that that is a recipe for a lot of deaths, suffering, and poverty.

Yes, that's where I differ from a lot of Libertarians. (I also disagree with them on foreign policy, but that is, again another topic.) A lot believe in the capitaist utopia as I like to call it, where things regulate themselves. And while I sympathize with theme, and share that ideal, I also see that humans aren't perfect enough to pull that off yet.

I would tend to think that if we shape our policies and laws with the expectation that greed is the fundamental underlying force and inescapable, we cannot transcend greed. I don't believe in any form of utopia. But I think we can better ourselves if we try to be better and have good priorities and ideals.

ChrisWWII wrote: We need a guiding hand, and that hand is the government. I'd even say that the Constitution supports this claim. The US government is beholden to its citizens, and if acting in the best intests of its citizens means regulating corporations a bit, then so be it. Just don't create a hostile business environment.

One point of worldview where I think we differ is that I don't see the government as a "guiding hand", or something really external to the citizenry. It's the tool with which we get things done collectively. Cooperative and coordinated action is where humanity gets all our best stuff done. Whether it's bridges to cross rivers, skyscrapers to hold people and look awesome and impressive, or systems of laws which give us justice and equal treatment. Government is how we do that, as a society.

Corporations are another form of cooperative effort, but the issue with a for-profit corporation is that it's highest good and top priority is always profit. Profit comes ahead of life, health, safety, justice, etc. Unless someone forces the corporation to treat those things as priorities. Now, the officers of the company itself can do that, but as soon as the company goes public, they are beholden to the shareholders to maximize profits. And can even be sued by the shareholders for damages, and lose their jobs, if they don't. This is part of why external regulations are absolutely necessary; because otherwise corps must pursue profit even at the expense of endangering or harming people.

I think a lot of things are or can be done well within the for-profit model. But you need to have some boundaries and limits to make sure profit doesn't come at significant cost in human life and suffering. IMO this is one of the biggest problems with healthcare in this country. Doing it on a private, for-profit basis means that people's healthcare takes a backseat to profit, a lot of the time.

ChrisWWII wrote:
The problem I have with the state, is that I think that no one man or organization can really 'control' the economy, and trying to will only screw things up in the end.

The Soviets did a fairly effective job of controlling the economy, even it didn't produce optimal outcomes.

Anyway, economics is such that the amalgamation of wealth produces a natural governing force, meaning that I can't actually imagine how an unfettered, capitalist system would perpetuate itself.

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:
The problem I have with the state, is that I think that no one man or organization can really 'control' the economy, and trying to will only screw things up in the end.

The Soviets did a fairly effective job of controlling the economy, even it didn't produce optimal outcomes.

Anyway, economics is such that the amalgamation of wealth produces a natural governing force, meaning that I can't actually imagine how an unfettered, capitalist system would perpetuate itself.

It couldn't it would eat itself alive!

Mannahnin wrote:
I would tend to think that if we shape our policies and laws with the expectation that greed is the fundamental underlying force and inescapable, we cannot transcend greed. I don't believe in any form of utopia. But I think we can better ourselves if we try to be better and have good priorities and ideals.

Hmmm, see I view greed as one of those base, primal instincts of a humn being that you simply can't work around. It will always be with us, simply because it's instinct. We want our genetic legacy and ourselves to have the best chanc of thriving, and the best way to do that is to gather resources, occasionally at the expense of others. It's something so fundamental to being human, that trying to trascend it is impossible, and we should accept that and try and use greed for the greater good of all.

I guess the belief in the existence of a potential utopia is just a thing of youth. Only 18 years on this planet, so I haven't had TOO much time to be completely disillusioned.

One point of worldview where I think we differ is that I don't see the government as a "guiding hand", or something really external to the citizenry. It's the tool with which we get things done collectively. Cooperative and coordinated action is where humanity gets all our best stuff done. Whether it's bridges to cross rivers, skyscrapers to hold people and look awesome and impressive, or systems of laws which give us justice and equal treatment. Government is how we do that, as a society.

Hmm, I see your point, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. While I agree that cooperation and coordinated action is the key for driving society forward, it is better to harness the base instincts of humanity (like greed) to drive things forward in a way that directly benefits people. It's why communism doesn't work, people don't like working hard and then not getting rewarded for it. I always saw government's place in the world, as an overwatch, a regulating body that makes sure the actions of the for-profit corporations doesn't get out of hand, and they don't start hurting people, or taking dangerous short cuts in the name of saving money.

In a way, I view the government as a kind of...'accelerator' in the capitalist utopia I mentioned earlier. Instead of the people regulating with their wallets, the government steps in to regulate with laws in a way that is more effective, and quicker than the people alone.

I think a lot of things are or can be done well within the for-profit model. But you need to have some boundaries and limits to make sure profit doesn't come at significant cost in human life and suffering. IMO this is one of the biggest problems with healthcare in this country. Doing it on a private, for-profit basis means that people's healthcare takes a backseat to profit, a lot of the time.

Ah, when it comes to health care, I believe that letting it be a private endavour was better than making it public. We kinda saw how things worked there, doctors work, malpractice comes after them if they screw up, and the desire to do better drives them forward to find newer and better cures for everything. However, we also saw the downside in terms of increasing costs that kept some individuals out of the system of healthcare. Health care is a complicated issue, and I don't pretend to be an expert. I don't like the fear mongering some members of the right have unleashed upon the idea of universal health care, but I'm still doubtful, and a little bit anxious about the whole thing.

dogma wrote:
The Soviets did a fairly effective job of controlling the economy, even it didn't produce optimal outcomes.

Well, I see some advantages of a cnetrally planned economy, and the Soviets were the epitome of that. If you're running your country centrally (like a giant factory) you get some efficiency in the system, as long as you stick to industrialization. You can industrialize fast, and pump out obscene amounts of industrial production, which is what the Soviets did.

The problem is that, sooner or later you run into a brick wall. Once you've fully industrialized....what now? You amy be able to control an industrial economy, but micromanaeing a service economy gets harder and harder, and, as we saw with the Soviets, eventually fails completely.

Anyway, economics is such that the amalgamation of wealth produces a natural governing force, meaning that I can't actually imagine how an unfettered, capitalist system would perpetuate itself.

I'm not sure what you're saying here...that the governing force of capitalism stops the system from expanding? I'd say that it drives the system on. The desire for more money, more customers, more expansion would drive companies and corporations to search for such assets, or have smaller corporations founded to take advantage of untapped resources. Of course, this is back to my capitalist utopia, so reality kinda went flying out the door.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
I would tend to think that if we shape our policies and laws with the expectation that greed is the fundamental underlying force and inescapable, we cannot transcend greed. I don't believe in any form of utopia. But I think we can better ourselves if we try to be better and have good priorities and ideals.

Hmmm, see I view greed as one of those base, primal instincts of a humn being that you simply can't work around. It will always be with us, simply because it's instinct. We want our genetic legacy and ourselves to have the best chanc of thriving, and the best way to do that is to gather resources, occasionally at the expense of others. It's something so fundamental to being human, that trying to trascend it is impossible, and we should accept that and try and use greed for the greater good of all.

Adam Smith would have called that the invisible hand at work. He did not believe in unfettered capitalism, though. He wanted merchant greed to produce good outcomes, and frequently warned that business interests would collude to form cartels and monopolies at the expense of the public.

There are several problems with the dream of a self-regulated capitalist utopia.

(A) Classical market economics is based on the idea that all actors in the market have 100% information, and act rationally. These conditions aren't true.
(B) Even accountants will tell you that not everything can be measured with money.
(C) It's clear that much human behaviour isn't actuated by other drives than monetary greed.

Which is why, it is, and will remain a utopian ideal, instead of a realistic future.

ChrisWWII wrote:
The problem is that, sooner or later you run into a brick wall. Once you've fully industrialized....what now? You amy be able to control an industrial economy, but micromanaeing a service economy gets harder and harder, and, as we saw with the Soviets, eventually fails completely.

Sure, my point was merely that if you want to control an economy, then there are ways to do it.

ChrisWWII wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying here...that the governing force of capitalism stops the system from expanding? I'd say that it drives the system on. The desire for more money, more customers, more expansion would drive companies and corporations to search for such assets, or have smaller corporations founded to take advantage of untapped resources. Of course, this is back to my capitalist utopia, so reality kinda went flying out the door.

I'm saying that all capitalist economies naturally place the majority of wealth into the hands of a small number of people, and that those people naturally govern the rest of the economy by nothing more than their direction of capital; a fact that naturally works against the traditional, capitalist assumptions of perfect information and perfect competition.

I'm also saying that said extremely wealthy individuals are unlikely to limit their control over the system to the manipulation of liquid capital, and are very likely to form something nearly identical to government.

dogma wrote:I'm also saying that said extremely wealthy individuals are unlikely to limit their control over the system to the manipulation of liquid capital, and are very likely to form something nearly identical to government.

Which is basically what we have right now in the US. Try becoming a politician without having a proper amount of wealth...

It actually isn't all that hard to run at the state level without lots of your own money. And, really, at the federal level it isn't so much that you need money, as you need to be in the social circles that have political power; money is the easiest way to get there of course, but not the only one. Barney Frank, John McCain, and Al Franken are all good examples of this.

Wait, you're saying there is more than just Federal elections? Why wasn't I told about this?

dogma wrote:

I'm saying that all capitalist economies naturally place the majority of wealth into the hands of a small number of people, and that those people naturally govern the rest of the economy by nothing more than their direction of capital; a fact that naturally works against the traditional, capitalist assumptions of perfect information and perfect competition.

I'm also saying that said extremely wealthy individuals are unlikely to limit their control over the system to the manipulation of liquid capital, and are very likely to form something nearly identical to government.

Hmm, I agree with you on that. It goes against my ideals, but ideals have to bow in face of reality. It does make quite a bit of sense.