Impedance of the American Constitution

[Divine_Wind]

So they compromised their principals to appease the wealthy.

They compromised so there’d be a US Constitution and not just 13 different states.

 

[TDGonDP]

Not only are westerners taught to think linearly, but we’re a consumerist society which seeks to prove the adage “The one who dies with the most toys wins”.

While all of us abide by this "rule" to some degree, some of us have conquered or are trying to conquer our materialist nature.

The Japanese and other Asians have their own issues that need conquering as well. But we will find similar afflictions in both cultures.

Humanity needs to change. Too bad we can't get guidance from many of our political leaders.

 

[TDGonDP]

They compromised so there’d be a US Constitution and not just 13 different states.

I like cascade of quotes from Retired USN, Rich 2018, and Rising Sun. I think they beg for more elucidation. I'll just offer some comments and ask some questions. Maybe this thread will go further yet.

I believe that the primary objective of the constitution was to unite the 13 states into a force that could repel the British taking over again. It's not hard to imagine the British taking back their colonies one-by-one, but 13 together would have been very difficult.

But could not the northern states, if slavery was so objectionable, formed their own union? A union of eight or so states would have still been a formidable force for the British to take over.

Slavery was indeed on the way out in the west. Had the North let the South secede, the South would have had to deal with its own slavery in its own way. So was being forced to "convert" worth the lives of 600,000?

Earlier in this thread, Xelor made a post in regards to the wealth of George Washington. The myth portrays him as someone from the middle class who married well. But according to Xelor's posts, George came from a very wealthy family. I am coming to the understanding that the founding fathers were more interested in their own wealth than the good of humanity. They led the independence movement because they were tired of British regulations taking their profits. They united the 13 colonies because if the British took over, their wealth would be confiscated. These men were far from altruistic. They were feathering their own nest right from the start.

 

[Thoreau72]

I'm not sure about "fascist and authoritarian symptoms". I think there is a tendency for big organizations to have fascist-like mindsets in certain departments, so I'm not convinced that few fascists in government are a big deal.

If there are a few too many, maybe Mr. Trump is the person to rock the boat and get some different people in charge. I don't know.

I remember a documentary on Edgar Hoover. He had a dossier of dirty deeds on all influential politicians. If they went after him, he would open up the file to let the public see. Is this the kind of fascism you are talking about?

Not really, but it could be included maybe.

For fascism, I use the following definition from my trusty old Webster: A philosophy or governmental system marked by stringent socioeconomic control, a strong central government usually headed by a dictator, and often a belligerently nationalistic policy.

IMO that describes today's USA to a T.

From Big Pharma to Big Oil to Big Insurance, the companies doing business own their bought elected representatives, and because of that they get to write the rules that govern them. All against the back drop of Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex and the ideas of the Unitary Executive and perpetual war brought under fraud, our illustrious Global War On Terror.

 

[TDGonDP]

Not really, but it could be included maybe.

For fascism, I use the following definition from my trusty old Webster: A philosophy or governmental system marked by stringent socioeconomic control, a strong central government usually headed by a dictator, and often a belligerently nationalistic policy.

IMO that describes today's USA to a T.

From Big Pharma to Big Oil to Big Insurance, the companies doing business own their bought elected representatives, and because of that they get to write the rules that govern them. All against the back drop of Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex and the ideas of the Unitary Executive and perpetual war brought under fraud, our illustrious Global War On Terror.

I could go along with except there are a whole whack of laws that counter the forces you are talking about. Here's a short list:

1) Laws that allow labor unions and how strikes can be settled.
2) Environmental laws: Remember the LA smog and Lake Eire cesspool?
3) Workers' Compensation and worker safety
4) Food safety: food processing, restaurants, and retailers
5) Class action civil lawsuits

If BIG BUSINESS truly had its way, none of these laws would have ever passed or enforced. We plebes would still be working 12 hours a day, six days a week. I think it is a far cry to claim that BIG BUSINESS is an example of successful fascism.

I will contend, however, that BIG BUSINESS gets more influence than it deserves in the political process. I think it sees its investment in the political process as a means to defeat, delay, or dilute unwanted legislation. It wins some battles, but loses others. The profits earned in the successful battles cover their investment into the political process.

 

[Divine_Wind]

....For fascism, I use the following definition from my trusty old Webster: A philosophy or governmental system marked by stringent socioeconomic control, a strong central government usually headed by a dictator, and often a belligerently nationalistic policy.

IMO that describes today's USA to a T.....

IMO, anyone who thinks the US is a fascist country has never experienced living in a fascist or totalitarian country.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I like cascade of quotes from Retired USN, Rich 2018, and Rising Sun. I think they beg for more elucidation. I'll just offer some comments and ask some questions. Maybe this thread will go further yet.

I believe that the primary objective of the constitution was to unite the 13 states into a force that could repel the British taking over again. It's not hard to imagine the British taking back their colonies one-by-one, but 13 together would have been very difficult.

But could not the northern states, if slavery was so objectionable, formed their own union? A union of eight or so states would have still been a formidable force for the British to take over.

Slavery was indeed on the way out in the west. Had the North let the South secede, the South would have had to deal with its own slavery in its own way. So was being forced to "convert" worth the lives of 600,000?

Earlier in this thread, Xelor made a post in regards to the wealth of George Washington. The myth portrays him as someone from the middle class who married well. But according to Xelor's posts, George came from a very wealthy family. I am coming to the understanding that the founding fathers were more interested in their own wealth than the good of humanity. They led the independence movement because they were tired of British regulations taking their profits. They united the 13 colonies because if the British took over, their wealth would be confiscated. These men were far from altruistic. They were feathering their own nest right from the start.

I don’t do text walls and this subject alone is worth at least one or two college courses. A good one is found here: https://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-116

One of the first things I learned in studying history is to not judge 18th people by 20th century standards. Aditionnally, having two independent countries in competition with each other for the west would have been detrimental to all. Let’s not forget that the Brits supported the Confederacy against the Federal government....at least the rich guys did, but only for profit.

 

[Port & Starboard]

So they compromised their principals to appease the wealthy.

Cry! Cry! Cry!

I guess we should have stayed with England who brutalized the world under colonialism fright up until WWII.

 

[Thoreau72]

I could go along with except there are a whole whack of laws that counter the forces you are talking about. Here's a short list:

1) Laws that allow labor unions and how strikes can be settled.
2) Environmental laws: Remember the LA smog and Lake Eire cesspool?
3) Workers' Compensation and worker safety
4) Food safety: food processing, restaurants, and retailers
5) Class action civil lawsuits

If BIG BUSINESS truly had its way, none of these laws would have ever passed or enforced. We plebes would still be working 12 hours a day, six days a week. I think it is a far cry to claim that BIG BUSINESS is an example of successful fascism.

I will contend, however, that BIG BUSINESS gets more influence than it deserves in the political process. I think it sees its investment in the political process as a means to defeat, delay, or dilute unwanted legislation. It wins some battles, but loses others. The profits earned in the successful battles cover their investment into the political process.

Most hollow indeed sir.

Yes, such laws have been passed, but by way of policy and laws and other things, unions have the standing of Boy Scouts of America these days.

Many of the regulatory laws you mention have been rendered moot by Trump & Companies.

Class action civil lawsuits? Yes, there are some, but have you ever read the fine print on your credit card contracts? Mediation is the only solution.

And none of those things obviate the many symptoms we have in common with Webster's definition. Most weak.

 

[Thoreau72]

IMO, anyone who thinks the US is a fascist country has never experienced living in a fascist or totalitarian country.

Gee, a most (un) convincing statement. Sounds nice, sounds smart, but does not really change the fact that the US today displays virtually every single description in the Webster definition.

Must one personally walk on the moon in order to understand it?

 

[TDGonDP]

Most hollow indeed sir.

Yes, such laws have been passed, but by way of policy and laws and other things, unions have the standing of Boy Scouts of America these days.

Many of the regulatory laws you mention have been rendered moot by Trump & Companies.

Class action civil lawsuits? Yes, there are some, but have you ever read the fine print on your credit card contracts? Mediation is the only solution.

And none of those things obviate the many symptoms we have in common with Webster's definition. Most weak.

Here is the definition of fascism from Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com

(1) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, (2) forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, (3) regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and (4) emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

(1) BIG BUSINESS has failed in finding its own dictator for there is no dictator. But I will concur that it still gets its way with government more than it deserves. It does lose battles.
(2) The fact that CNN is still around and you can shout from your soapbox or protest in the streets is a good sign that opposition is not suppressed.
(3) The Nazis and Italian fascists were pretty good at marshalling business to fullfill a fascist agenda. If a business did not do the government's bidding, they were replaced. I'm not seeing a connection in the US economy to indicate fascist activities. Profit-maximizing, feather-nesting, and corporate welfare are not signs of fascism.
(4) "Make American Great AGAIN" is probably a sign of as attempt at aggressive nationalism, but it has a long way to go to suppress other viewpoints. I will concur that racists had a place to park their voting block in 2016.

Is USA turning more towards a fascist agenda? There is a good argument for this concept, but it still has a long ways to go. Maybe we are 10% of the way there. In 2024, there will be a new president--and the pendulum will likely swing the other way.

When CNN and other "fake news outlets" are shut down, that's when fascism starts. I think the American public will put up a great backlash, unlike the Germans and Italians of the 1930s.

 

[TDGonDP]

Gee, a most (un) convincing statement. Sounds nice, sounds smart, but does not really change the fact that the US today displays virtually every single description in the Webster definition.

Must one personally walk on the moon in order to understand it?

I was living in Slovakia shortly after the Velvet Revolution. One of my long-lost relatives was Alojz Volek. His story is here:

Dave Volek :: TDG

Very few Americans today experience oppression like Alojz experienced under the communists.

Alojz's story was fairly common. He was an example for the communists to prove their ability to make life very difficult. Most Czechs and Slovaks stayed within the boundaries to avoid a similar fate. These people lived much closer to a state of fascism than Americans today.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Gee, a most (un) convincing statement. Sounds nice, sounds smart, but does not really change the fact that the US today displays virtually every single description in the Webster definition.

Must one personally walk on the moon in order to understand it?

Dude, you are free to believe that the US matches the definition, but obviously it does not. If anything, there isn’t enough “socioeconomic” control since big business wields far too much power on government and, consequently, diminishes the power of the “strong central government usually headed by a dictator”. Fine. If you want to believe the US is equal to Nazi Germany, you go right ahead. You live in a free country and you can say or think whatever the **** you want.

Consider that if the US really was a fascist state, your internet would be turned off and you’d disappear.

 

[Thoreau72]

Here is the definition of fascism from Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com

(1) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, (2) forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, (3) regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and (4) emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

(1) BIG BUSINESS has failed in finding its own dictator for there is no dictator. But I will concur that it still gets its way with government more than it deserves. It does lose battles.
(2) The fact that CNN is still around and you can shout from your soapbox or protest in the streets is a good sign that opposition is not suppressed.
(3) The Nazis and Italian fascists were pretty good at marshalling business to fullfill a fascist agenda. If a business did not do the government's bidding, they were replaced. I'm not seeing a connection in the US economy to indicate fascist activities. Profit-maximizing, feather-nesting, and corporate welfare are not signs of fascism.
(4) "Make American Great AGAIN" is probably a sign of as attempt at aggressive nationalism, but it has a long way to go to suppress other viewpoints. I will concur that racists had a place to park their voting block in 2016.

Is USA turning more towards a fascist agenda? There is a good argument for this concept, but it still has a long ways to go. Maybe we are 10% of the way there. In 2024, there will be a new president--and the pendulum will likely swing the other way.

When CNN and other "fake news outlets" are shut down, that's when fascism starts. I think the American public will put up a great backlash, unlike the Germans and Italians of the 1930s.

Your definition and mine have much in common, though we can argue about how far along fascism has matured in this country.

If you're not seeing a connection between fascist activity and today's GWOT and the military industrial complex, I suspect it's because you'd rather not.

I wonder if you are familiar with what Sibel Edmonds of "Classified Woman" fame had to offer back in 2003 or so? I wonder what you might have taken away from what Snowden released? Assange and Wikileaks?

As Obamacare (which I opposed) was being crafted, the role of the Insurance Industry in crafting it was apparent to all who were paying attention. We could digress regarding the role of insurance in the relationship between physician and patient, but it too is an indicator of fascist tendencies and practices.

 

[Thoreau72]

I was living in Slovakia shortly after the Velvet Revolution. One of my long-lost relatives was Alojz Volek. His story is here:

Dave Volek :: TDG

Very few Americans today experience oppression like Alojz experienced under the communists.

Alojz's story was fairly common. He was an example for the communists to prove their ability to make life very difficult. Most Czechs and Slovaks stayed within the boundaries to avoid a similar fate. These people lived much closer to a state of fascism than Americans today.

Yes, the Czechs and Slovaks were thrown into boiling water. The US is in the water as the heat is being turned up slowly.

 

[Thoreau72]

Dude, you are free to believe that the US matches the definition, but obviously it does not. If anything, there isn’t enough “socioeconomic” control since big business wields far too much power on government and, consequently, diminishes the power of the “strong central government usually headed by a dictator”. Fine. If you want to believe the US is equal to Nazi Germany, you go right ahead. You live in a free country and you can say or think whatever the **** you want.

Consider that if the US really was a fascist state, your internet would be turned off and you’d disappear.

Well thank you for that permission. I shall reciprocate and give you permission to believe that this truly is the land of the free and home of the brave, and that all men are equal before the law.

Under a fascist state, the internet wouldn't be turned off. I would remain on, under strict control of government and corporate censors, rather like we have today. The water is getting warm indeed, and most americans would rather pretend otherwise. I'll take a pass.

 

[TDGonDP]

Your definition and mine have much in common, though we can argue about how far along fascism has matured in this country.

If you're not seeing a connection between fascist activity and today's GWOT and the military industrial complex, I suspect it's because you'd rather not.

I wonder if you are familiar with what Sibel Edmonds of "Classified Woman" fame had to offer back in 2003 or so? I wonder what you might have taken away from what Snowden released? Assange and Wikileaks?

As Obamacare (which I opposed) was being crafted, the role of the Insurance Industry in crafting it was apparent to all who were paying attention. We could digress regarding the role of insurance in the relationship between physician and patient, but it too is an indicator of fascist tendencies and practices.

There are more forces than the industrial military complex with their snouts in the trough, convincing politicians that their position in society requires more money. Think of American farmers, who consider themselves as true conservatives: when the weather gets a little bad or the markets turn a little sour, they turn to the government for help. Think all those Americans living in flood plains: when a flood happens, they want help. And just to be fair, USA does a welfare class whose votes are being bought. But none of these groups is trying to silence you. Call it kleptocracy if you want, but it is not fascism.

The day Mr. Trump tries to shut down CNN is when I will take your claim seriously. But I don't see him doing that.

 

[Media_Truth]

Don't get me wrong. For 1791, the American constitution was a great social engineering invention in its day. I acknowledged that world learned a lot from this document.

But just like we have abandoned scientific models of the past, it's time to let western democracy go and move forward with another system of governance. If you are interested in hearing more, private message me.

Jefferson foresaw an outdated Constitution - or at least parts of it.

https://www.azquotes.com/quote/367626

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Women's right to vote is an obvious outdated notion. Other Constitutional Rights are violated on a daily basis, and States often pass laws that are thought to be unconstitutional. I would definitely like to see more discussion on the merits of parts of the Constitution.

 

[Divine_Wind]

....Under a fascist state, the internet wouldn't be turned off. I would remain on, under strict control of government and corporate censors, rather like we have today. The water is getting warm indeed, and most americans would rather pretend otherwise. I'll take a pass.

You either misunderstood my post or are trying to avoid the truth; like China, they wouldn't turn off the Internet. They'd just restrict it and, in the example, turn yours off just before taking you in for interrogation and reeducation. Of course that won't happen since we aren't living under a fascist state.

 

[TDGonDP]

Jefferson foresaw an outdated Constitution - or at least parts of it.

https://www.azquotes.com/quote/367626

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Women's right to vote is an obvious outdated notion. Other Constitutional Rights are violated on a daily basis, and States often pass laws that are thought to be unconstitutional. I would definitely like to see more discussion on the merits of parts of the Constitution.

I believe that there have only been two amendments in the last 50 years, neither of which are earth-shattering to USA. The constitution is no longer adapting to the times. In these days of extreme partisanship, no further amendments should be expected.

 

[Thoreau72]

You either misunderstood my post or are trying to avoid the truth; like China, they wouldn't turn off the Internet. They'd just restrict it and, in the example, turn yours off just before taking you in for interrogation and reeducation. Of course that won't happen since we aren't living under a fascist state.

I understand your hypothetical, but you cannot predict the future or how governments might behave any better than I can.

In fact, the issue of net neutrality has been a hot potato issue for some years now. In fact, the FCC has made several blatant attempts to turn its control over to various corporations. That is fact, not hypothetical.

I'm not sure of the present status of net neutrality, but it is a fact that ISPs, corporations, control the internet with government approval. Others are fighting that, and I approve of the fight. AT&Treason is one of my least favorite companies, and I write them a check every month.

In fact, the internet is very much censored by people we don't even see, and those people work for corporations with close ties to government "regulators".

 

[Divine_Wind]

I understand your hypothetical...

LOL. Very amusing coming for a person who claims we are living under a fascist government.

 

[Thoreau72]

LOL. Very amusing coming for a person who claims we are living under a fascist government.

Sad but typical that we pretend we are not living under a government with strong fascist leanings.

I'm curious why you are silent about the battle for net neutrality here in the land of the free and home of the corporations. I think I know why you're silent on the topic you brought up.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Sad but typical that we pretend we are not living under a government with strong fascist leanings.

I'm curious why you are silent about the battle for net neutrality here in the land of the free and home of the corporations. I think I know why you're silent on the topic you brought up.

Thanks for the backpedal. While I still disagree, I appreciate the fact you backed away from your previous claim:

Not really, but it could be included maybe.

For fascism, I use the following definition from my trusty old Webster: A philosophy or governmental system marked by stringent socioeconomic control, a strong central government usually headed by a dictator, and often a belligerently nationalistic policy.

IMO that describes today's USA to a T.

From Big Pharma to Big Oil to Big Insurance, the companies doing business own their bought elected representatives, and because of that they get to write the rules that govern them. All against the back drop of Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex and the ideas of the Unitary Executive and perpetual war brought under fraud, our illustrious Global War On Terror.

 

[American]

1. The status of the average people in the colonies is important to understand the creation of this document. The constitution was very much a product of the elite of its times. It's sort of like letting today's CEOs writing the laws.

2. Agreed. Amending formulas are needed.

3. The constitution worked well because of other reasons. 1) Continental USA had a temperate climate. 2) The land was rich in resources, 3) the land was free for the taking, 4) "Going west" was an immense social relief valve, with many dissatisfied citizens being able to find new opportunities in other locations. Take away those attributes, the constitution won't really matter that much. For example, let's set up a new country in Antarctica, give it a copy of the American constitution, and see what happens in a century.

In terms of governance, the British trained its "white" colonies well. USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all well established economies that give their citizens a lot of opportunities. We are all democracies where citizens can throw out its governors through an election. The British had established the principles of free elections before the American independence. The monarchy was already becoming a ceremonial role at that time. We cannot say today that USA is obviously a superior nation to Canada or the UK.

In a contrary manner, the former Spanish colonies have not done so well, despite having similar opportunities to develop these nations. The legacy of dictatorial governance of Spain was instilled in these new colonies.

In terms of creating a better society, coming from Britain is more important than the actual constitution.

There were plenty of Germans and other nationalities. No, the Constitution is what really made the difference.