View Poll Results: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

Voters
94. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    38 40.43%
  • No

    56 59.57%
Page 18 of 56 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 555

Thread: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

  1. #171
    Educator HogWash's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Last Seen
    05-03-15 @ 12:47 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    997

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    When one can get 32 semi skilled workers for 12-14hrs/day for what one first day burger flipper gets for eight, all the "it was the unions!" or "it was taxes!" or "it was regulations!" rhetoric is exposed for what it is. Rhetoric.

    Businesses move to take advantage of that dirt cheap labor the moment it became feasible. They would have done so had there been no regs, taxes or unions. Unless you can prove those elements offset a 32+:1 employee ratio for the same money. A ten man McDonalds crew for eight hours compared to a factory of 320 semi skilled workers for fourteen hours. Not a difficult choice to make for a CEO.
    Correct...they just couldn't get 'em in this country. Bye bye jobs. Hello Mexico.
    Liberalismódividing up the EARNED wealth of honest, hard working and ingenious AMERICANS and giving it to the leeches who would rather waste their worthless lives living off the government teat.
    -----HogWash-----

  2. #172
    Sage
    Geoist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,916

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    They are profiting. That is a good thing.
    An individual profiting off his/her own labor is a good thing.
    An individual profiting off the common wealth is detrimental the community.


    They also risk losing and do lose.
    There is very little risk involved. Current property taxes are so low that a speculator can sit on an empty site for years before selling.


    Nor should the act be discouraged.
    It absolutely should be discouraged and many great thinkers from JS Mill, Adam Smith, Albert Einstein, and many others agreed.

    Land speculation is the driving force behind our boom/bust cycle.
    "Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/

  3. #173
    Sage
    Geoist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,916

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    WTF?
    I just quoted you saying it.
    What I said does not mean we should base our defense spending on how other countries spend. The comparison was to illustrate how out of control our spending is.


    Nothing about it is outrageous.
    That is your opinion.

    As much as we need to project our power and support our interests and continue research and development so we can keep it that way for a good long time.
    I have no interest in expanding corporate-state causes.
    "Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/

  4. #174
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    Perhaps I will have more to say on this later. But for right not I have a problem with your statements that
    if you believe i am wrong....then PLEASE, show me per the Constitution where i am wrong about what i have said......and i will be most happy to listen to your arugment.



    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    AND....
    does the constitution grant any rights to the people........no!......the word grant nor give to the people, appears no where in the constitution.

    does it grant powers to congress..........yes!......article 1 section 1--All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

    do you see anywhere in the constitution, where it creates a relationship, between governments and the people.........no!

    do you see where it creates a relationship between the states and the federal government........yes.........it delegates powers to the federal government which are few and defined.......and the Constitution states, that all powers not delegated the the federal by the Constitution shall remain the power of the states....this creates a separation of powers,...know as federalism.



    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    AND...

    You seem to imply that the Bill of Rights only places restrictions on the federal government. So for instance the first amendment states
    the bill of rights are restrictions placed solely on the federal government ...not state governments.....this can be found by reading the preamble to the bill of rights, and reading Madison words on it, ...as Madison wrote the bill of rights.

    The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

    Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [FEDERAL] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    Madison---But the evidence is still stronger. The proposition of amendments made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government. --

    WHAT DOES THE BILL OF RIGHTS START OUT BY SAYING?-------"Congress" shall make no law....this applies to every clause of the bill of rights.


    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    If we take your assertions that the constitution only grants powers to the federal government and restricts the federal government but does not limit the powers of the states, we would be led to believe that the states have the right to pass laws that abridge freedom of the press. And that's not the case. Therefore the powers granted to the states are not infinite and are indeed limited by the constitution.

    under the Constitution of the founders, the federal government is very limited, it has no authority from congress in the lives, liberty, property of the people that is a state power....you will see no powers of congress in article 1 section 8 having anything to do with the personal life's of the people..this is fact!

    the constitution states clearly, what powers the states shall NOT engage in [ powers delegated to the federal government, and powers with are forbidden...... to both states and the federal governments]...are very few.

    people under the Constitution are to be governed by their state Constitution, which have a declaration of rights in them, which deal with speech, prayer, protest, and the rights you see in the bill of rights..........which is where the recognized rights in the bill of rights, ........were drafted from.

    the constitution which is a limiting document.....limits the federal government to only delegated powers.....GRANTING THEM FEW POWERS.............it does not grant powers to states, because the constitution recognizes the state have numerous powers, which are not limited by the constitution...accept for the few mentioned in the constitution.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    Last edited by Master PO; 05-16-14 at 09:03 PM.

  5. #175
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,985

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    McCulloch v. Maryland

    "this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof," "shall be the supreme law of the land," and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States shall take the oath of fidelity to it. The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

    Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding.
    McCulloch v. Maryland - 17 U.S. 316 (1819) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

  6. #176
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post

    again for you....


    IMPLIED POWERS........In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress which are not explicitly given by the Constitution itself but necessary and proper ----------------------->>>>to execute the powers which are<------

    ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8 CLAUSE 18-----To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    implied powers are powers to make federal laws which pertain to the constitutional powers .....congress has been granted

    EXAMPLE-----congress is granted the power to punish ......counterfeiting and piracy........however the power granted is just a general power, ..it is NOT DEFINED.

    article 1 section 8 clause 18 - grants congress the ability to make a federal law, which defines this constitutional power down into law, ......by the procedures, and actual punishment of what crime is going to be.

    implied powers DO NOT grant congress the ability to created any federal laws, which DO not deal with the Constitutional powers granted to congress in article 1 section 8

  7. #177
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,985

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    again for you....


    IMPLIED POWERS........In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress which are not explicitly given by the Constitution itself but necessary and proper ----------------------->>>>to execute the powers which are<------

    ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8 CLAUSE 18-----To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    implied powers are powers to make federal laws which pertain to the constitutional powers .....congress has been granted

    EXAMPLE-----congress is granted the power to punish ......counterfeiting and piracy........however the power granted dis just a general power, ..it is NOT DEFINED.

    article 1 section 8 clause 18 - grants congress the ability to make a federal law, which defines this constitutional power down into law, ......by the procedures, and actual punishment of what crime is going to be.

    implied powers DO NOT grant congress the ability to created any federal laws, which DO not deal with the Constitutional powers granted to congress in article 1 section 8
    i quote the case and the oppinion of the court and that is still not enough.

    Facts of the Case
    In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.

    Question
    The case presented two questions: Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?

    Conclusion
    Decision: 7 votes for McCulloch, 0 vote(s) against

    Legal provision: US Const. Art 1, Section 8 Clauses 1 and 18

    In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."
    so is john marshal wrong?

    McCulloch v. Maryland | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

  8. #178
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    i quote the case and the oppinion of the court and that is still not enough.



    so is john marshal wrong?

    McCulloch v. Maryland | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
    no Marshall was not wrong!


    Marshall is saying......... the federal government , can make FEDERAL LAWS...........which DEFINE the constitutional powers granted to the congress.

    congress is given the CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF MONEY...........but the implied power, gives them the power to create federal laws----> concerning our money.

  9. #179
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,985

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    no Marshall was not wrong!


    Marshall is saying......... the federal government , can make FEDERAL LAWS...........which DEFINE the constitutional powers granted to the congress.

    congress is given the CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF MONEY...........but the implied power, gives them the power to create federal laws----> concerning our money.
    John marshall stated that congress had the implied power of creating a bank, even though the constituion does not directly mention the word "bank"

    that is why he said this important line.
    But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described.
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

  10. #180
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    John marshall stated that congress had the implied power of creating a bank, even though the constituion does not directly mention the word "bank"

    that is why he said this important line.
    are you saying because the congress chartered a second bank of the u.s. ...this gives the Congress UNLIMITED POWERS TO CREATED ANY FEDERAL LAW THEY DESIRE?


    BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING.

Page 18 of 56 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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