Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

Master PO · May 16, 2014

Unitedwestand13 said:
McCulloch v. Maryland

McCulloch v. Maryland - 17 U.S. 316 (1819) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

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

Unitedwestand13 · May 16, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
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

Master PO · May 16, 2014

Unitedwestand13 said:
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.

Unitedwestand13 · May 16, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
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.

Master PO · May 16, 2014

Unitedwestand13 said:
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.

Unitedwestand13 · May 16, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
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.

i am only going with what marshall has said.

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.

anything wrong with this statement?

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.

or this statement?

Master PO · May 16, 2014

Unitedwestand13 said:
i am only going with what marshall has said.

anything wrong with this statement?

or this statement?

here is the constitutional POWER of congress.....granted by article 1 section 8

it is a GENERAL POWER, being not defined.

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"

nothing in the GENERAL POWER...defines and determines.....where the coin is to be coined?, ...who will coin it?, ....how much coin will be produced?, ....what the design of the coin will be?, ...what the cost of coining will be?

the implied power, grants congress the power to write federal laws, which defines the constitutional POWER.

a federal law, WILL....DEFINE where the coining location will be......who is going to do the coining.....how many coins are going to be coined, ......who is going to make the design of the coin and what it looks like, ........ what the federal cost are going to be for creating designing producing and establishing this coin for the u.s.

Unitedwestand13 · May 16, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
here is the constitutional POWER of congress.....granted by article 1 section 8

it is a GENERAL POWER, being not defined.

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"

nothing in the GENERAL POWER...defines and determines.....where the coin is to be coined?, ...who will coin it?, ....how much coin will be produced?, ....what the design of the coin will be?, ...what the cost of coining will be?

the implied power, grants congress the power to write federal laws, which defines the constitutional POWER.

a federal law, WILL....DEFINE where the coining location will be......who is going to do the coining.....how many coins are going to be coined, ......who is going to make the design of the coin and what it looks like, ........ what the federal cost are going to be for creating designing producing and establishing this coin for the u.s.

i was asking if anything from the quote from john marshall you found wrong.

humor me, bold the line or phrase from the two quotes in my prior message you found wrong, because i have no idea what part of my message you are responding too.

Master PO · May 16, 2014

Unitedwestand13 said:
i was asking if anything from the quote from john marshall you found wrong.

humor me, bold the line or phrase from the two quotes in my prior message you found wrong, because i have no idea what part of my message you are responding too.

i was giving you a perfect example of what an implied powers are, using the coinage of money. .........which mostly pertains to your second quote

from the first i take it Marshall is saying, ..we cant find a bank or corporation creation power in the constitution, like the A O C would exclude implied powers...... but he is saying the Constitution does not exclude implied powers

again "implied powers" are real powers...[power to make federal law] from clause 18....but that clause does not give the congress power to create federal laws for anything they desire......they can create any federal law that has to do with the general constitutional powers of article 1 section 8.

congress can create any law, which has to do with coinage.

federal taxes

borrowing money on the name of the U.S......just to name a few of the general constitutional powers.

MildSteel · May 16, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
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!

Let me ask you a simple question before I try to comment further. Do you believe that the states have the right to pass laws that legalize slavery?

Master PO · May 17, 2014

MildSteel said:
Let me ask you a simple question before I try to comment further. Do you believe that the states have the right to pass laws that legalize slavery?

now or before the civil war?

now.....no... its defies the founding principles, and constitutional law

before.......... it defies the founding principles, but made legal because slaves were not considered people but instead property by 3 states, the other 9 wanted slavery abolished.

however if the issue of slavery being abolished WAS TRIED by force on the 3, there would have been no DOI, and the states would have not been united against Britain in the revolutionary war, we could not have won it, and the men of the DOI would have been hanged as traitors, by the KING.

Neomalthusian · May 17, 2014

I voted yes that Karl Marx was in some ways right about capitalism. I do not think he was necessarily right about how alternatives to it could work out.

Excon · May 17, 2014

Geoist said:
An individual profiting off the common wealth is detrimental the community.

That is not what is being done.

Geoist said:
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.

Oy vey. :doh
It belongs to them, and they are paying taxes on it. (Even though they shouldn't have to, as that is counter to ownership.)

Geoist said:
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.

No it shouldn't be discouraged.
And your logical fallacy is noted.

Geoist said:
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.

What an absurd thing to say. It shows no such thing.

Geoist said:
That is your opinion.

iLOL :doh
No. That was me putting your opinion into perspective.

Geoist said:
I have no interest in expanding corporate-state causes.

Too bad.
It isn't outrageous, and like I said it is how much we need; 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.

MildSteel · May 17, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
now or before the civil war?

now.....no... its defies the founding principles, and constitutional law

before.......... it defies the founding principles, but made legal because slaves were not considered people but instead property by 3 states, the other 9 wanted slavery abolished.

however if the issue of slavery being abolished WAS TRIED by force on the 3, there would have been no DOI, and the states would have not been united against Britain in the revolutionary war, we could not have won it, and the men of the DOI would have been hanged as traitors, by the KING.

So exactly why does it violate constitutional law?

Also, do you think that states have the right to pass laws that order schools to be segregated?

Objective Voice · May 17, 2014

Aunt Spiker said:
Yes - every system has strengths and weaknesses. Nothing's going to solve all of our problems (because problems are caused by people and nature, etc, not your economic system).

Our economic system serves, in some ways, to correct or address these inherent issues.

Ergo: the best system is the one that permits you the most flexibility as you need it and as the world changes around you. The least favorable are ones that are stringent or limiting.

The problem is most of those who go to Washington, DC claiming to be doing "the will of the people" are doing no such thing. They're doing the will of the corporate lobby and their only interest is protecting the interest of the corporations they represent.

Objective Voice · May 17, 2014

USViking said:
Spoken like a true SS blood hound.

I guess this one really turns you on:

"Democracy is the canal through which bolshevism lets its poisons flow into the separate countries and lets work there long enough for these infections to lead to a crippling of intelligence and of the force of resistance." Adolph Hitler

Oh, and BTW the last time the markets were really free they tanked the word economy in 1929.

Also, the US markets regained a significant measure of "freedom" when Glass-Steagel was repealed in 1998, thus leading to the creation of entites too big to allow to fail without risking another worldwide collapse. Enron was only the first of those monstrosities.

Also the US real estate markets were virtually unregulated in the late 1990s leading to the 2007-8 crash, from which we have not yet recovered.

Regulation is our friend. We need more regulation, not less.

:shock:
OMG! Tell me I'm dreaming! A conservative did not type those words? I never thought I'd live to see the day when a conservative would admit that too much relaxing of federal regulations lead to economic chaos and that the country needs more (reasonable, binding, arbitrary) regulations, not less.

<tears>

Glen Contrarian · May 17, 2014

MildSteel said:
Here's an interesting article by George Magnus, former Chief Economist at UBS, the biggest bank in Switzerland

SO

Was Karl Marx right about capitalism?

Yes, for the most part. Capitalism is a wonderful engine for economic growth...but only if that capitalism is properly regulated, and the working people are not seen as tools to be discarded as soon as they're not needed.

Objective Voice · May 17, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
wrong...here is Madison's own words on democracy in the federalist #10...

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

Madison went with republican form of government...not a democratic form

article 4 section 4 of the u.s.constitution.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

a democracy is a democratic form of government and the founders hated democratic forms.

I think what confuses most people about a democratic form of government versus a republic is a lack of understanding as to how such governments are designed to function. Put simply, although both forms of government hold free elections to choose representatives to act on behalf of the people, in a democracy it's usually "majority rule" and the rules can be changed nearly at a whim, whereas, in a republic both the majority and the minority are suppose to come up with "best solutions" to govern and the rules aren't so easily broken. This is why it's so frustrating for many Americans to see Congress act in such a dysfunctional fashion.

But I digress...

To the point of this thread, was Karl Marx right concerning capitalism? Yes. When economic power is concentrated with a small few and the majority of a nation's citizens are left wanting, when economic inequality becomes widespread, and when the labor force is no longer the driver of a national economy which itself is designed to function based on "consumption and debt", then yes, Karl Marx was absolutely right.

The question now is will those in power see the error of their ways - greed - and start giving back to those they owe a large part of their success based primarily on their labor?

Aunt Spiker · May 17, 2014

Objective Voice said:
The problem is most of those who go to Washington, DC claiming to be doing "the will of the people" are doing no such thing. They're doing the will of the corporate lobby and they're only interest is protecting the interest of the corporations they represent.

What you're really talking about is a potential flaws in our democratic system which guarantees political success to elites and those that hold ground regarding demagoguery. Basically: political success is akin to winning a popularity contest or otherwise playing the game very well.

JJB3333 · May 18, 2014

I'm not entirely sure about this. On one hand i agree with Marx in that communism might be good for equality and no more oppression and government, but an important part of communism is no religion. Among a few other factors, our religion (or lack there of (and i personally consider science a religion)) is what defines us.

Also, though he may have been right, Marx's communism does not work. People are never satisfied with equality and to be forced into equality could be considered oppression.

I dont know, so i said no

MildSteel · May 18, 2014

Glen Contrarian said:
Yes, for the most part. Capitalism is a wonderful engine for economic growth...but only if that capitalism is properly regulated, and the working people are not seen as tools to be discarded as soon as they're not needed.

Therefore I said that capitalists need to operate within certain constraints and need to make sure that workers needs are properly accommodated. Otherwise, you just end up with an tyrannical oligarchy based on money.

Objective Voice · May 18, 2014

Aunt Spiker said:
What you're really talking about is a potential flaws in our democratic system which guarantees political success to elites and those that hold ground regarding demagoguery. Basically: political success is akin to winning a popularity contest or otherwise playing the game very well.

That's another way of looking at it, but let's not hijack the thread and save this for another debate.

Objective Voice · May 18, 2014

JJB3333 said:
I'm not entirely sure about this. On one hand i agree with Marx in that communism might be good for equality and no more oppression and government, but an important part of communism is no religion. Among a few other factors, our religion (or lack there of (and i personally consider science a religion)) is what defines us.

Also, though he may have been right, Marx's communism does not work. People are never satisfied with equality and to be forced into equality could be considered oppression.

I dont know, so i said no

Forced equality...is that your way of saying those who have greater wealth shouldn't be forced to share? In that, I agree. People should give because they want to, not because they're forced to. But I wouldn't go too far as to say people are never satisfied with equality. It depends on what is being defined as "equal".

Master PO · May 18, 2014

MildSteel said:
So exactly why does it violate constitutional law?

Also, do you think that states have the right to pass laws that order schools to be segregated?

two things.

under the founding principles...every man has the unalienable right to life , liberty, and the pursuit of what ever makes him happy, ..which is usually property.

constitutional law, the 13th forbids such things has slavery AND involuntary servitude......meaning no one can be forced to work for another unless convicted of a crime.

government cannot discriminate, (unless) it can prove that by discrimination, it is in the state interest....... people can discriminate.

no ...government governments cannot segregate schools.

MildSteel · May 18, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
two things.

under the founding principles...every man has the unalienable right to life , liberty, and the pursuit of what ever makes him happy, ..which is usually property.

constitutional law, the 13th forbids such things has slavery AND involuntary servitude......meaning no one can be forced to work for another unless convicted of a crime.

government cannot discriminate, (unless) it can prove that by discrimination, it is in the state interest....... people can discriminate.

no ...government governments cannot segregate schools.

~~So, the 13th amendment to the constitution took away the rights of individuals to practice slavery in the US, correct?~~

Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

Yes

No

More options

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

Unitedwestand13

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

Unitedwestand13

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

Unitedwestand13

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

Unitedwestand13

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

MildSteel

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

Neomalthusian

Excon

MildSteel

Objective Voice

Objective Voice

Glen Contrarian

Objective Voice

Aunt Spiker

Cheese

JJB3333

Active member

MildSteel

Objective Voice

Objective Voice

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

MildSteel