Government: How big is too big?

[quote name='mykevermin']As I said before, I'm not the only one having a discussion in this thread. You don't have to respond to me, but it's pretty disrespectful to everyone else in here to take a dump in here by doing nothing but posting a link and leaving.

If you want to have a temper tantrum, go right ahead. You're not exactly doing a lot to refute my original "insult." You're making me look more correct by the post.[/QUOTE]

This is your 4th reply to me, and you still haven't been able to craft one that doesn't have negative personal connotation towards me. This one is closest yet, if only you left out 'temper tantrum.' Ah well.

As for others, I didn't really see any other posts that I had a specific response to other than HotShotX's, which I did reply to on the first page (post #10). I didn't read your input due to your opening insult, but I said that already.

So, I continued to add to the discussion by adding another link that is on the same topic as the OP. You don't have to reply to every single poster in a thread, and I both started the thread + replied to a poster on the first page. At this point I think its possible you are trying to derail the thread due the content of it: The government might be getting too big! Because I honestly don't see an issue with the way I've posted in this thread.

[quote name='GuilewasNK']No offense myke, but that was the first thing you said to the OP in this thread and it seemed uncalled for.[/quote]

Yep, you can't expect someone to take the rest of your post seriously if you open it up with an insult/personal attack IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@OP

I think when people get scared they almost always collectively look to the government with sober teary eyes and want their hand held. The government says "there there, I'll make it better if you just grant me more power and more of your money" -- and usually people are happy to say "Okay!"

And, of course, that power is never repealed. Once the government is grown, given more power, more oversight, or more influence over our lives, it's never going to be the same.

Sadly, though, most people don't realize that the government has an abysmal track record for "fixing" anything, or making it better.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Sadly, though, most people don't realize that the government has an abysmal track record for "fixing" anything, or making it better.[/quote]

I don't know what you mean. They've done a great job fixing the Iraq problem, the Afghan problem, that other Iraq problem in the 1990s, the Central America problem, the South America problem, the Vietcong problem, the North Korean problem and the underlying Soviet problem.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Sadly, though, most people don't realize that every entity has an abysmal track record for "fixing" anything, or making it better.[/QUOTE]
FTFY.

The only honor is in starving to death in an existence without human contact. Everything else is communism.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I don't know what you mean. They've done a great job fixing the Iraq problem, the Afghan problem, that other Iraq problem in the 1990s, the Central America problem, the South America problem, the Vietcong problem, the North Korean problem and the underlying Soviet problem.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget how well Social Security is doing and how Medicaid is destroying the healthcare system.

With that in mind, I find it odd how some actually support Universal Healthcare. What a clusterfuck that will be if it ever happens!
 
[quote name='Ruined']Don't forget how well Social Security is doing and how Medicaid is destroying the healthcare system.

With that in mind, I find it odd how some actually support Universal Healthcare. What a clusterfuck that will be if it ever happens![/quote]

Yep.

I really don't want a single payer system, but the current system of our elected officials practically being employees of the medical industry hasn't made for a better system.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Don't forget how well Social Security is doing and how Medicaid is destroying the healthcare system.[/QUOTE]

Of course we can go through other grand government successes: the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on terror, AmeriCorps, SuperFund...wow we can go on forever here.
 
Medicare is destroying the Health care system, not Medicaid. As for Social Security, the Government just keeps spending it before you earn it.
 
Wow. I guess the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are innocent victims in the growing cost of health care, then.

And up is down, black is white, truth is fiction...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Wow. I guess the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are innocent victims in the growing cost of health care, then.

And up is down, black is white, truth is fiction...[/QUOTE]

The "victims" if you want to use that word are the taxpayers, not the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The taxpayers eventually have to share the cost of the massive burden these programs (which do not discourage irresponsible usage) put on the state.

Docs also struggle as well to provide quality of care especially with Medicaid patients which they often lose money on.
 
[quote name='familydog']You obviously have never read the Constitution. Otherwise you'd know that slavery was never authorized.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/UnconstitutionalityOfSlaveryContents.htm[/QUOTE]

Haha! Actually, familydog, you made my day because I'm already familiar with Lysander Spooner's arguments. But you should know that slavery was considered to be legal by the framers and was practiced - Spooner probably agreed on both points.

Spooner's argument was that the exact wording of the Constitution did not authorize slavery, but that doesn't mean he supported the Constitution itself. In fact, he once made a similar argument to one I made earlier in this thread, arguing against its validity.

So it would be quite ironic if you were attempting to defend the Constitution by citing Spooner. Anyway, I hope anyone reading this thread who had no idea what familydog was talking about gets it now.

Edit: Oh, and BTW familydog, there are a lot of people who've read the Constitution and believe slavery was authorized, and I think you know that. So even if they're wrong, it was silly of you to say, "You obviously have never read the Constitution. Otherwise you'd know that slavery was never authorized."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='rickonker']Haha! Actually, familydog, you made my day because I'm already familiar with Lysander Spooner's arguments. But you should know that slavery was considered to be legal by the framers and was practiced - Spooner probably agreed on both points.

Spooner's argument was that the exact wording of the Constitution did not authorize slavery, but that doesn't mean he supported the Constitution itself. In fact, he once made a similar argument to one I made earlier in this thread, arguing against its validity.

So it would be quite ironic if you were attempting to defend the Constitution by citing Spooner. Anyway, I hope anyone reading this thread who had no idea what familydog was talking about gets it now.[/QUOTE]

Ever read Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech?

It lays out the difference between implicitly allowed and explicitly pretty starkly.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Ever read Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech?

It lays out the difference between implicitly allowed and explicitly pretty starkly.[/QUOTE]
I believe Stephens thought that the Constitution did authorize slavery, but the framers didn't like it. What are you referring to exactly?
 
If slavery wasn't allowed, there would have been 8 or fewer original states.

The North certainly didn't have the industrial capacity to fight both the Southern states and the British in the 1770s.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I believe Stephens thought that the Constitution did authorize slavery, but the framers didn't like it. What are you referring to exactly?[/QUOTE]

In the Confederate constitution slavery was explicitly protected and freeing slaves was banned. Some argue that slavery was never *really* legal in the US, slavery died out in England around the time of the Norman Conquest and in the colonies the system grew from the practice of indentured servitude. Pretty much every thing written protecting slavery was ad hoc and usually coached in the mealy mouthed rhetoric of property rights, a Laissez faire attitude of sorts.

In contrast to this:
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth"
 
[quote name='Msut77']In the Confederate constitution slavery was explicitly protected and freeing slaves was banned. Some argue that slavery was never *really* legal in the US, slavery died out in England around the time of the Norman Conquest and in the colonies the system grew from the practice of indentured servitude. Pretty much every thing written protecting slavery was ad hoc and usually coached in the mealy mouthed rhetoric of property rights, a Laissez faire attitude of sorts.

In contrast to this:
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth"[/QUOTE]
Ok, but I'm not sure I see what you're trying to say in the thread...
 
[quote name='rickonker']Ok, but I'm not sure I see what you're trying to say in the thread...[/QUOTE]

That slavery to put it as another poster did "was never really authorized" emphasize on really.
 
[quote name='Msut77']That slavery to put it as another poster did "was never really authorized" emphasize on really.[/QUOTE]
But again, Stephens believed it was authorized, but he also thought the framers expected it to go away later.
 
[quote name='rickonker']But again, Stephens believed it was authorized, but he also thought the framers expected it to go away later.[/QUOTE]

There is authorized (meaning here it was allowed to continue) and then there is what Stephens and the Confederates believed.
 
From the Sunday Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

Obama wants to control the banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.

By STUART VARNEY
I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.
Click to expand...

Not good. :(
 
Honestly, I think gov't control of some of these institutions is just going to drive them further into the ground over time.

I mean, if you know you are a talented worker and have an excellent resume/past experience, would you rather work at the company that has gov't oversight to ensure you don't "make too much money" on your bonus/salary, or a private company which does not have these restrictions and allows for big bonuses based on performance? Obviously if you have the skill to be hired by the other company you will switch jobs.

As a result, all of the talented staff is going to leave the gov't controlled institutions for other ones and these gov't controlled companies will be stuck with mediocre-skilled people and those without any experience who can't find a job elsewhere. As a result of this, they will likely not be competitive over time due to lack of skilled/experienced workers and be up the creek in the end anyway.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Honestly, I think gov't control of some of these institutions is just going to drive them further into the ground over time.[/quote]
The only current practical example of a state owned financial house is the Bank of North Dakota. It is a consistent profit earner.
As a result, all of the talented staff is going to leave the gov't controlled institutions for other ones and these gov't controlled companies will be stuck with mediocre-skilled people and those without any experience who can't find a job elsewhere. As a result of this, they will likely not be competitive over time due to lack of skilled/experienced workers and be up the creek in the end anyway.
Click to expand...
If you've got a brain in your head, why would you still be at AIG/whoever? The market for finance guys is awful. These people couldn't get another job at anywhere near their current salary. That argument doesn't hold water.

They're already uncompetitive, which doesn't support your point. They are companies filled with people that have made choices that have made them uncompetitive. How the heck can turnover be a bad thing?

I worked for a company that had a stock price of $55 the day I was hired. When I was laid off 364 days later, they were under $3. It was apparent from day 1 that the company was run about as grossly incompetently as possible. I was making plans from the first day to the day I got my layoff notification. Government or not, the writing was on the wall. It's absurd to pretend that people that went down with the ship are in any way the best and brightest. They were the slowest and in denial. Not the type you want staying.
 
I think it's funny how people freak out over "big government". It's just a game of tug-of-war between the corporate and political elite. Either way we are screwed, stop pretending that "big government" is the problem.
 
Eh, their opinion page has been as right-leaning as long as the NYT op-ed page has been left leaning. It's nothing new, and nothing to be tied to Murdoch.

That said, when *I* want to be informed about current events, I go straight for the op-ed page. I skip all the "articles" and make sure I get my daily dose, not of what's going on in the world, but in what people think is going on in the world.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Honestly, I think gov't control of some of these institutions is just going to drive them further into the ground over time.[/quote]

...

...

...

#-o

...perhaps you can explain to me how institutions that, like Lehman Brothers, would otherwise no longer exist in any way, shape, or form in the absence of government intervention, be "further" driven in to the ground?

It's like taking your beloved grandma, who has terminal cancer, to the hospital for treatment. Six months later she dies. Do you suddenly blame the doctors for making things worse than they otherwise would have been?

Get fuckin' real.

I mean, if you know you are a talented worker and have an excellent resume/past experience, would you rather work at the company that has gov't oversight to ensure you don't "make too much money" on your bonus/salary, or a private company which does not have these restrictions and allows for big bonuses based on performance? Obviously if you have the skill to be hired by the other company you will switch jobs.
Click to expand...

If they were talented workers, the company would NOT BE IN THE POSITION THEY ARE IN.

You want to make subtle jabs suggesting we're headed towards a government power grab, and they want to control everything. Come talk to me when the government siezes control of McDonald's, or the dairy industry, or any other industry that turns a profit and doesn't post quarterly losses and balance sheets that have as much genuine balance as a quadriplegic ballet dancer.

The government bought into a big pile of bullshit that was dying - so when these industries die, if they do (they prolly will), down the line - do you blame the government for killing something that would have died in September of 2009 had the government done nothing?

Don't get me wrong; in some ways I genuinely wish the government would have done nothing. Maybe given each citizen three cracks with a pair of brass knuckles at the AIG executive of your choice...but not bailing them out.

AIG would no longer exist if not for the bailout. AT ALL. This is irrefutable and undeniable. So how dare you make the claim that their situation is WORSE because of government intervention.

As the great pirate Yellowbeard would say, "Dying's the easy way out. You won't catch me dying. They'll have to kill me before I die!"

As a result, all of the talented staff is going to leave the gov't controlled institutions for other ones and these gov't controlled companies will be stuck with mediocre-skilled people and those without any experience who can't find a job elsewhere. As a result of this, they will likely not be competitive over time due to lack of skilled/experienced workers and be up the creek in the end anyway.
Click to expand...

A philosophical strawman with nothing to back it up empirically. As devoid of real-world support as supply-side economics policies.

BUT! Oh, no! The mean man wasn't cordial to me when I made my dumbass arguments, so I won't dignify him with a response! Well, lad, let me explain something to you: if you want to be spoken to like a grown up, then you have to argue like a grown up. You fail miserably by basing all your arguments by starting with your conclusions (your ideological/political viewpoints), and then seeking to verify them, not with real-world examples, but pithy strawmen built from philosophical and hypothetical statements, and similarly-minded opinions. You can't document a single bit of real-world evidence to support a bloody thing you say, so you deserve nothing less of a response, if you deserve one at all, other than scorn and mockery. I can't bloody well say that you offer "good form," because I'm not prone to bullshit people.
 
Ruined, the government already controls them. willardhaven is on to something. I don't think this matters as much as you're suggesting.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Don't get me wrong; in some ways I genuinely wish the government would have done nothing. Maybe given each citizen three cracks with a pair of brass knuckles at the AIG executive of your choice...but not bailing them out.[/QUOTE]

I'd settle for just not giving them our money. Of course you are right AIG is in a better position than they would have been (at minimum, bankruptcy), but the United States (especially those of us who actually pay taxes) are in a much worse position due to our stupidity vis-a-vis AIG and other "too big to fail" bullshit.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You want to make subtle jabs suggesting we're headed towards a government power grab, and they want to control everything. Come talk to me when the government siezes control of McDonald's, or the dairy industry, or any other industry that turns a profit and doesn't post quarterly losses and balance sheets that have as much genuine balance as a quadriplegic ballet dancer.[/quote]

Playing devil's advocate here.

Let's say the government lets fat people sue McDonald's and other fast food restaurants much in the same way smokers sued Big Tobacco back in the 90s and the stock prices of all fast food start to tank. With the fast food franchise on the brink of bankruptcy, the American people incapable of cooking for themselves beseech Congress to bail out the fast food industry. With the fast food industry incapable of fixing itself and hungry fatties threatening a slow moving revolt, the government steps in and exerts control similar to the government's control of AIG.

Does Ruined's argument improve?
 
Not if you think of the contingencies necessary to get from point A to point Z in your hypothetical. Going from "fat people sue" to "McD's files for bankruptcy" involves massive leaps in logic.

Moreover, you're not contrasting fast food with an industry that has failed. Tobacco has remained bonkers profitable despite the lawsuits and payouts to those annoying truth commercials. Prepare a hypothetical where the industry failed, not remained a solid performer in spite of growing opposition against them at a government level. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Not if you think of the contingencies necessary to get from point A to point Z in your hypothetical. Going from "fat people sue" to "McD's files for bankruptcy" involves massive leaps in logic.

Moreover, you're not contrasting fast food with an industry that has failed. Tobacco has remained bonkers profitable despite the lawsuits and payouts to those annoying truth commercials. Prepare a hypothetical where the industry failed, not remained a solid performer in spite of growing opposition against them at a government level. ;)[/quote]

You're no fun.

Tobacco survived because it could raise its prices and there was no competition.

If McD's had to raise the price on a Quarter Pounder to $10 due to judgments, people might buy fresh fruit or something healthy. Then, millions of fatties living on a high fat / high calorie diet would go into shock while adjusting to all those vitamins, natural sugar and lack of fat. We would have fights in the streets as people fight over the last jars of bacon fat and lard. Hospitals would be flooded by people eating undercooked bacon and eggs. Come on, you can imagine this. Then, our blessed Government would offer McD's a way out ... for a price.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You're no fun.

Tobacco survived because it could raise its prices and there was no competition.

If McD's had to raise the price on a Quarter Pounder to $10 due to judgments, people might buy fresh fruit or something healthy. Then, millions of fatties living on a high fat / high calorie diet would go into shock while adjusting to all those vitamins, natural sugar and lack of fat. We would have fights in the streets as people fight over the last jars of bacon fat and lard. Hospitals would be flooded by people eating undercooked bacon and eggs. Come on, you can imagine this. Then, our blessed Government would offer McD's a way out ... for a price.[/quote]

That is highly speculative and wacky... I like it.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Tobacco survived because it could raise its prices and there was no competition.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, not smoking was just not an alternative...
 
[quote name='rickonker']Yeah, not smoking was just not an alternative...[/quote]

People really love smoking. packs cost around $10 here in NY and even though people are out of work they're still smoking. Cigarette companies must be lacing their products with cocaine or something, oh wait...
 
Yeah, I have to wonder how high ciggies will have to cost before the majority of smokers say, "Enough is enough" and quit. It seems odd to me to pay a premium for something that kills you and is relatively boring. I've never smoked, so maybe that niccotine high is better than I think?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I think it's funny how people freak out over "big government". It's just a game of tug-of-war between the corporate and political elite. Either way we are screwed, stop pretending that "big government" is the problem.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps we are screwed either way, but at least with the corporate elite we have an immediate choice. If corporation X is not satisfactory to you, you could immediately go with corporation Y or Z instead. With the government, your only choice is to move out of the state (state govt issue), move out of the country (federal government issue), or wait years and hope through various factors what you prefer will triumph politically in voting.

Frankly, though corporations are greedy at least we have choice and competition involved that allows us some selection and more freedom (IMO). That makes me feel screwed a lot less, and allows me more choices in life.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Perhaps we are screwed either way, but at least with the corporate elite we have an immediate choice. If corporation X is not satisfactory to you, you could immediately go with corporation Y or Z instead. .[/QUOTE]

Without government regulation most large industries would be ruled by monopolies who drove all competitors out of business.

So corporation X would be your only choice, or Y and Z would also be big monopolies so there would be little difference among your "choices."

It's just the way of a capitalist society. It's either ruled by the elite rich in a few large corporations. Or it's ruled by them and a large government partially keeping them in check.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Without government regulation most large industries would be ruled by monopolies who drove all competitors out of business.

So corporation X would be your only choice, or Y and Z would also be big monopolies so there would be little difference among your "choices."

It's just the way of a capitalist society. It's either ruled by the elite rich in a few large corporations. Or it's ruled by them and a large government partially keeping them in check.[/QUOTE]

This is one of those things people are told in school that isn't actually true. A large government keeps large corporations "in check" the way W. kept Cheney in check.
 
[quote name='rickonker']This is one of those things people are told in school that isn't actually true. A large government keeps large corporations "in check" the way W. kept Cheney in check.[/quote]

This is the truth. It would be awesome if we got the kind of fairytale government we learned about in school.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Haha! Actually, familydog, you made my day because I'm already familiar with Lysander Spooner's arguments. But you should know that slavery was considered to be legal by the framers and was practiced - Spooner probably agreed on both points.

Spooner's argument was that the exact wording of the Constitution did not authorize slavery, but that doesn't mean he supported the Constitution itself. In fact, he once made a similar argument to one I made earlier in this thread, arguing against its validity.

So it would be quite ironic if you were attempting to defend the Constitution by citing Spooner. Anyway, I hope anyone reading this thread who had no idea what familydog was talking about gets it now.

Edit: Oh, and BTW familydog, there are a lot of people who've read the Constitution and believe slavery was authorized, and I think you know that. So even if they're wrong, it was silly of you to say, "You obviously have never read the Constitution. Otherwise you'd know that slavery was never authorized."[/quote]

Lol wut?

I fail to see the point of your post. Spooner makes an excellent case on why slavery was never Constitutional. You did nothing to refute that.

Next.
 
[quote name='familydog']Lol wut?

I fail to see the point of your post. Spooner makes an excellent case on why slavery was never Constitutional. You did nothing to refute that.

Next.[/quote]

Doesn't reality contradict Spooner's conclusions?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Doesn't reality contradict Spooner's conclusions?[/quote]

*shrug* I guess it depends on your perspective. The Civil War Amendments were ratified and put into the Constitution in an unconstitutional manner and in reality they are void. Yet, the American legal system has deemed them "Constitutional." So do we put our trust in "the system", or put our trust in the Constitution itself? Do we go by fraudulent claims of legality created by the victors of an unneccesary war? Or go by the actual text of the Constitution? Spooner argues the latter.

The Constition is a contract between These United States and the federal government. A contract. Therefore, intention of the words in the contract are irrelevent. The terms stated in the contract are to be interpreted based on legal definitions exclusively. Spooner shows why this contract excludes slavery and argues persuasively why the framer's intent cannot be used to interpret the Constitution.

A previous poster tried to play "gotcha" with Spooner's arguments. The poster claimed that Spooner argued the Constitution invalid. Yet, if this poster was actually familiar with Spooner and his writing, the poster would know that The Unconstitutionality of Slavery was written during the climax to the Civil War (1865). It wasn't until after the war that he argued the war itself had invalidated the Constitution. This in his writting No Treason (1867). Therefore, the poster's arguments are irrelevent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top