The Persistent Problem of Pesky Liberal States & What To Do About It - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 46 to 56 of 56

Thread: The Persistent Problem of Pesky Liberal States & What To Do About It

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Central Northern Minnesota
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjk308 View Post
    Already addressed in The Federalist 10, by Madison. Faction (and Parties) are inherent in the nature of man and eliminating them as you propose is a cure worse than the disease. He generally uses the word faction, "Party" having a bad press during the Enlightenment and being in great Britain a synonym for corruption and graft.

    The Same Subject Continued
    The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
    From the New York Packet. Friday, November 23, 1787.
    MADISON
    To the People of the State of New York: ....

    .......By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
    There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
    There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
    It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
    The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
    The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. .....

    .....
    It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
    The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS. ....
    I think it's just the medicine the Doctor ordered. It allows people free association in the private sector, and the parties to advocate whatever they want in the private sector, but as corporate entities to have zero association with any candidate or elected official, not by their choice, but by the elected officials or candidates as a prerequisite for public office. This helps eliminate the "pay to play" standard we experience today, and gets interlopers out of the relationship between representative and the represented.

    There's a reason why this sort of different legal standard is necessary in the military, and the same reason applies to our positions of representation at a minimum. If Madison noted it hundreds of years ago, it's probably an inherent problem that needs managing against. After all, this is exactly why we formed this country.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Central Northern Minnesota
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    The "inequality" resides in small states (say Nevada or New Hampshire or Alaska and other small population states) having two votes plus at least one. More votes in rlation to population than large population states (Texas, California, New Yawk, etc.). It is small, but still not insignificant.
    But populations don't vote for the chief federal executive, geographies do, states and representative districts. It's that republican form of government negating mob rule of democracy. For the chief federal executive, and this office alone, this is a very good thing IMO.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Oldsmar, FL (Tampa Bay)
    Posts
    30,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deminn View Post
    I think it's just the medicine the Doctor ordered. It allows people free association in the private sector, and the parties to advocate whatever they want in the private sector, but as corporate entities to have zero association with any candidate or elected official, not by their choice, but by the elected officials or candidates as a prerequisite for public office. This helps eliminate the "pay to play" standard we experience today, and gets interlopers out of the relationship between representative and the represented.

    There's a reason why this sort of different legal standard is necessary in the military, and the same reason applies to our positions of representation at a minimum. If Madison noted it hundreds of years ago, it's probably an inherent problem that needs managing against. After all, this is exactly why we formed this country.
    And what do you do about the right to freedom of speech for private individuals? The Left is used to equating corporations with "Evil" but that ignores wealthy individuals using their fortunes to gain public office, as with the President and the governor of Florida. Arbitrary cutoffs and limitations of campaign expenditures, and public financing too (really a government selecting its preferred rulers), are abominations in the sight of the Constitution.

    With government regulation and taxation having a massive, even ruling, impact of the private sector the case for a strict separation, which Madison wrote against, has gotten much less appropriate in the past 100 years. It would mean the government could put any company out of business without any sort of input to their elected officials or any choice in electing them or their replacements.

    Our current system of representative democracy is more than adequate to handle the problem. Complaints about it are usually limited to those with complaints about the policies or performance of the current occupants of offices and not a systemic problem except that inherent in the human condition.
    211 BC: I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus Maximus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a denarius in any one day.

    2016 AD: To enhance our community's aggregate through multi-platform metrics of media synergy catalyzing integrated outcomes of macro-disciplines toward inclusive methodology paradigms generating positive algorithms of unwavering commitment to our children, the flag, and God.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    GunBoards.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Central Northern Minnesota
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjk308 View Post
    And what do you do about the right to freedom of speech for private individuals? The Left is used to equating corporations with "Evil" but that ignores wealthy individuals using their fortunes to gain public office, as with the President and the governor of Florida. Arbitrary cutoffs and limitations of campaign expenditures, and public financing too (really a government selecting its preferred rulers), are abominations in the sight of the Constitution.

    With government regulation and taxation having a massive, even ruling, impact of the private sector the case for a strict separation, which Madison wrote against, has gotten much less appropriate in the past 100 years. It would mean the government could put any company out of business without any sort of input to their elected officials or any choice in electing them or their replacements.

    Our current system of representative democracy is more than adequate to handle the problem. Complaints about it are usually limited to those with complaints about the policies or performance of the current occupants of offices and not a systemic problem except that inherent in the human condition.
    If the current system was adequate, we wouldn't have the problems we're having with partyfirst officials. Private individuals would be able to communicate with their representatives as they can now, likely more freely since a few wouldn't be monopolizing their time on behalf of others. Now no matter who we are talking about there is something of an honor system here for both the individual and the representative but since the penalty for violating this ban on private association could be made draconian enough for all parties, I'd think after the first score of examples or so representatives would avoid even the appearance of evil and ensure that their business was conducted only with those who they were charged with representing.

    This would require new legislation as campaign reform, not a constitutional amendment like what I noted above would, but PACs, corporations, non-profits, could all spend whatever they wanted in whatever manner they wish so long as the speech was clearly labeled identifying those funding it, and that it was identified as different from speech coming directly from the candidate or his campaign. Truth in labeling standards sort of deal.

    Corporate interests are not represented in congress as separate from individuals interests, at least they shouldn't be as they are now. Corporations are not people, they aren't even states. They are children of the states and states represent their interests on the state level in congress through the senate. State officials would still have access to both house and senate members, not as fellow party members which would not be allowable, but as whatever their office at the state level was responsible for. The house is responsible for representing the interests of the people in their districts, and the nation as a whole, just like the Senate is responsible for representing the people of the states as a whole, thereby the states, and the nation as a whole.

    That said, the executive branch through regulation has far more impact for good or bad on commercial interests through agency regulation than congress does in a functional way imo.

  6. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Oldsmar, FL (Tampa Bay)
    Posts
    30,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deminn View Post
    If the current system was adequate, we wouldn't have the problems we're having with partyfirst officials. Private individuals would be able to communicate with their representatives as they can now, likely more freely since a few wouldn't be monopolizing their time on behalf of others. Now no matter who we are talking about there is something of an honor system here for both the individual and the representative but since the penalty for violating this ban on private association could be made draconian enough for all parties, I'd think after the first score of examples or so representatives would avoid even the appearance of evil and ensure that their business was conducted only with those who they were charged with representing.
    Do you realize you want to violate the First Amendment?

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    It doesn't say the people except for corporate office holders, lobbyists, or anyone with a commercial interest.

    Unfortunately you've been too heavily propagandized by Liberal activists trying to gain political advantage by charging everyone and everything outside of their own adherents with "apparent" conflicts of interest. If we had strict constructionist courts all of the laws on campaign financing, lobbying, and conflicts of interest for office holders would be tossed out, and I wouldn't shed a tear because they've done nothing but give political operatives and lawyers a nice income in figuring out evasions like the Clinton's speaking tours and book selling. The Founders had no problems whatsoever with running their own personal businesses while holding office or in funding campaigns. Later scandals like Teapot Dome always involved violations of real laws, not those enacted for the sake of appearances, or as political ploys.
    211 BC: I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus Maximus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a denarius in any one day.

    2016 AD: To enhance our community's aggregate through multi-platform metrics of media synergy catalyzing integrated outcomes of macro-disciplines toward inclusive methodology paradigms generating positive algorithms of unwavering commitment to our children, the flag, and God.

  7. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Central Northern Minnesota
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjk308 View Post
    Do you realize you want to violate the First Amendment?

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    It doesn't say the people except for corporate office holders, lobbyists, or anyone with a commercial interest.

    Unfortunately you've been too heavily propagandized by Liberal activists trying to gain political advantage by charging everyone and everything outside of their own adherents with "apparent" conflicts of interest. If we had strict constructionist courts all of the laws on campaign financing, lobbying, and conflicts of interest for office holders would be tossed out, and I wouldn't shed a tear because they've done nothing but give political operatives and lawyers a nice income in figuring out evasions like the Clinton's speaking tours and book selling. The Founders had no problems whatsoever with running their own personal businesses while holding office or in funding campaigns. Later scandals like Teapot Dome always involved violations of real laws, not those enacted for the sake of appearances, or as political ploys.
    Yes, that's why I suggested right from the start that it would take an additional constitutional amendment and wasn't likely to happen. You make very good points.

    I don't think I've been too heavily indoctrinated in democratic party values, I think I've been paying attention and noting that all political parties, which are nothing more than private associations, can (and are now) act (ing) as filter and corrupting influence between the elected and those they are charged with representing. political bodies charged with representing individual based on their geography are clearly not functioning in that manner when entire swaths of their populations are being disenfranchised not based on issue position, but on private political party allegiance by the representatives. Consider the recent supreme court nominees and the statements/political position taken by Senators on both sides during the last two nominations.

    You can't run a military having individual governed by the constitution, you need the UCMJ. I'd say that based on word and deed it's pretty plain that representative government has reached that point as well and something needs to change or we might as well simply act as criminal gangs, for in effect that is what the political parties have become. By allowing them to exist, to retain political speech as such, and allowing the citizenry to align themselves with them in the private sector you avoid the 1st amendment conflicts overall. A constitutional amendment would be required to temporarily strip the freedom of association right codified in the constitution from representatives and those interacting with them on behalf of others which means it's highly unlikely to ever be considered. It's merely one possible correction to our failing public governance system.

    IMO, a centuries long degradation of our constitutional standards by a corrupting judiciary is at the core of most of these problems. At this point that can only be addressed and corrected by a congress willing to act appropriately, and we will never see that coming from a corrupted congressional edifice unless we remove the corrupting influences substituting allegiance to the party, for allegiance to the people and the constitution.

  8. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Oldsmar, FL (Tampa Bay)
    Posts
    30,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deminn View Post
    Y and something needs to change or we might as well simply act as criminal gangs, for in effect that is what the political parties have become.
    That's an old political tradition. Whigs and Tories were the names for gangs of Scottish horse thieves and Irish outlaws.

    Political corruption always pops up because nobody's managed to invent a perfectly honest politician. And it keeps going until the voters get tired of it and kick Boss Tweed out of city hall. Attempts to keep him from getting into city hall in the first place belong in the mythical perfect world along with the New Soviet Man and the perfect office holder as conceived by the authors of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, someone who was highly intelligent but an absolutely blank slate, with no preconceived ideas at all.

    In the real world those attracted to politics under excessively rigid regimes are inevitably power mad ideologues or scoundrels patient enough to wait and collect on their debts after leaving office. Competence and effective governing are the last things they care about. Amassing power and IOUs come first.

    I have first hand experience of the problems inherent in barring those with interests from office. Norman Augustine, by far the most talented, thoughtful, far seeing and brutally honest defense industry executive, was considered for Secretary of Defense - I believe it was by Bush 41. But he had to decline because divesting himself of his Martin Marietta holdings and retirement fund would have been a financial disaster for him. The USA lost a great Sec Def and a chance to save the taxpayer many $billions and support our military better. See https://www.amazon.com/s?search-alia...=9781563472404 for Augustine's Laws. His First Law of Aerospace is "Everything costs more and takes longer than you predicted."
    211 BC: I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus Maximus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a denarius in any one day.

    2016 AD: To enhance our community's aggregate through multi-platform metrics of media synergy catalyzing integrated outcomes of macro-disciplines toward inclusive methodology paradigms generating positive algorithms of unwavering commitment to our children, the flag, and God.

  9. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Central Northern Minnesota
    Posts
    168

    Default

    I think it's still a worthy effort to try as best we can and correct the corruptions since the alternative is indeed criminal undertaking, a loss and insecurity of potentially everything our nation was crafted to secure to individuals. We need not tolerate that, or go quietly while our law is being violated and our people attacked. "When in the course of human events" and all that...

    We have a responsibility owed our people who created, secured, and currently make up our nation to expect that our constitution be respected by everyone. No matter where or in what office in our nation they sit. It is a quite reasonable, and responsible expectation to hold.

  10. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Oldsmar, FL (Tampa Bay)
    Posts
    30,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deminn View Post
    We have a responsibility owed our people who created, secured, and currently make up our nation to expect that our constitution be respected by everyone. No matter where or in what office in our nation they sit. It is a quite reasonable, and responsible expectation to hold.
    That is precisely why we have elections and why I believe Trump was elected. I couldn't vote for Hillary Clinton, a combination of incompetence, criminality and arrogance, under any circumstances.
    211 BC: I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus Maximus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a denarius in any one day.

    2016 AD: To enhance our community's aggregate through multi-platform metrics of media synergy catalyzing integrated outcomes of macro-disciplines toward inclusive methodology paradigms generating positive algorithms of unwavering commitment to our children, the flag, and God.

  11. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In my WVA mind!
    Posts
    27,128

    Default

    Trust is an issue with any political figure.....no matter party or record!

  12. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Central Northern Minnesota
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjk308 View Post
    That is precisely why we have elections and why I believe Trump was elected. I couldn't vote for Hillary Clinton, a combination of incompetence, criminality and arrogance, under any circumstances.
    I couldn't agree more.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •