America: Equality versus Greed?

[quik4life]

There's something I don't understand.

Throughout American history (since 1600), the ideals of equality, liberty and democracy have been in constant conflict and friction with the realities of material greed and power.

I would like to suggest that "the ideals of equality, liberty and democracy" were NOT significant concepts in the 17th century in America. The settlers guided by religious beliefs were escaping persecution in Europe. In other areas, colonies were established on British colonial principles, geographic expansion in the New World within the political concepts of the old country.

Thomas Hobbe's "Leviathan" (1651) and John Locke's writings (after 1689) provided the philosophical base for the principles defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Adam Smith ("The Wealth of Nations") and supporters of a free market to this day do not see a "constant conflict and friction" between a democratic political system and individual ambitions. Or would it be more accurate to say that a democratic system can effectively control excessive "greed and power" by individuals (monopolies) or groups (oligopolies).

Anyone have any thoughts?

 

[Texan]

nope

 

[quik4life]

no one has ANY opinions...

America is FOUNDED on equality and democracy, but EVOLVED into its exact opposite...the few rule the many...doesn't sound very democratic or equal to me...

 

[Texan]

OK, fine. America was neither founded on equality nor democracy. There ya go.

America was formed as rich-causcasion-elitist-controlled confederation. We have devolved (ironic, huh, considering from where we started) into a rich-caucasion-elitist-controlled faux democratic republic.

 

[penguinsfan]

Economic equality, in the truest sense, and liberty are polar opposites.

If the economic opportunity is obtained through mandate and redistribution of assets or restrictions that apply to some but not others, then there is no liberty. A person is not as free to pursue a course of action just as much as anyone else is.

At the same time, if we have liberty to do what we want to do with our lives, then we are not going to have economic equality. Those that are smart enough to see trends and capitalize on opportunities will soon blow past most others.

Imagine that the government suddenly mandated that we are to all turn in our currency and would establish their idea of equality, providing every individual with $5000 per month stipend and $1000 per month for housing. That seems like a reasonable middle-class income. As one example, a group of savy individuals could pool together and save to invest in a casino and many other individuals would gamble at their casinos and provide them an income. A small percentage of the population would become outright degenerate gamblers and lose most all of their income to these individuals, which would eventually decide to build a house that far surpasses the $1000 housing allowance.

Short answer: America was founded on religious freedom and liberty, NOT what we would literally call equality, in a financial sense.

 

[quik4life]

Economic equality, in the truest sense, and liberty are polar opposites.

If the economic opportunity is obtained through mandate and redistribution of assets or restrictions that apply to some but not others, then there is no liberty. A person is not as free to pursue a course of action just as much as anyone else is.

At the same time, if we have liberty to do what we want to do with our lives, then we are not going to have economic equality. Those that are smart enough to see trends and capitalize on opportunities will soon blow past most others.

Imagine that the government suddenly mandated that we are to all turn in our currency and would establish their idea of equality, providing every individual with $5000 per month stipend and $1000 per month for housing. That seems like a reasonable middle-class income. As one example, a group of savy individuals could pool together and save to invest in a casino and many other individuals would gamble at their casinos and provide them an income. A small percentage of the population would become outright degenerate gamblers and lose most all of their income to these individuals, which would eventually decide to build a house that far surpasses the $1000 housing allowance.

Short answer: America was founded on religious freedom and liberty, NOT what we would literally call equality, in a financial sense.

excellent response.

very concise.

anyone else have any opinions?

 

[Texan]

Quik4life, who said anything about economic/financial equality? I assumed you were talking about the "all men created equal" part.

Several people have commented on America's "democracy" in numerous threads over time, and despite my posts, nobody recognizes (or understands) that we are NOT, nor have we ever been a democracy. We are a democratic republic; our system is federalism, not democracy. People really should understand the difference. The U.S. started as a confederacy, then Madison and his treasonous cohorts, under the guise of "amending the Articles of Confederation," usurped the States of their sovreign power and drew up the Constitution. Then they launched an aggressive propaganda campaign (the Federalist Papers) to convince the remaining states to ratify it.

Nobody that I know of has ever even tried to claim any hint of a notion of economic equality in the formative ideas of our nation. It's so obvious it isn't worth talking about. No offense to Penguins (great guy, great mod).

Again, this nation was not founded on equality (read Article I, Sec 2- 3/5ths clause in ref to slaves), and there has never been any claim to economic equality. Democracy? already talked about that. Heck, Plato doubted a true democracy could ever exist, and if it could, it would not be an effective form of government.

 

[penguinsfan]

Several people have commented on America's "democracy" in numerous threads over time, and despite my posts, nobody recognizes (or understands) that we are NOT, nor have we ever been a democracy. We are a democratic republic; our system is federalism, not democracy. People really should understand the difference. The U.S. started as a confederacy, then Madison and his treasonous cohorts, under the guise of "amending the Articles of Confederation," usurped the States of their sovreign power and drew up the Constitution. Then they launched an aggressive propaganda campaign (the Federalist Papers) to convince the remaining states to ratify it.

I even find myself using the "democracy" term because our politicians themselves use it. For example, I've not heard anyone say we're trying to establish a "republic" in Iraq or Afghanistan, but a "democracy". It's just a term that we get ingrained into our heads, but it is almost always misused. True democracy, in a country of 290 million people, is insanity. Hell, it's hard enough to get it to work in many households on a family basis.

Interesting that you have such a strong viewpoint towards the second Constitutional Convention. Wow, I've never heard it stating like such. Guess I had always been taught that the Articles of Confederation gave the states so much power that the nation as a whole was totally lame-duck. Of course, that might be the propaganda you refer to. Personally, I would like to see more states right and less federal power. That is the most insane thing about the short-sighted argument of eliminating the electoral college, as it's about the last bit of power the states are holding on to. As for states rights, I kind of like many things I see about the way Canada has thing set up. If I had to live in any other country, it would clearly be Canada.

 

[Texan]

Interesting that you have such a strong viewpoint towards the second Constitutional Convention. Wow, I've never heard it stating like such. Guess I had always been taught that the Articles of Confederation gave the states so much power that the nation as a whole was totally lame-duck. Of course, that might be the propaganda you refer to. Personally, I would like to see more states right and less federal power. That is the most insane thing about the short-sighted argument of eliminating the electoral college, as it's about the last bit of power the states are holding on to. As for states rights, I kind of like many things I see about the way Canada has thing set up. If I had to live in any other country, it would clearly be Canada.

I really don't have such an extreme view about the deal. But that was the way many people (the wealthy land owners in power positions among the several states) viewed it.

I agree totally that there should be more sovreignty with the states, and I am very pleased to see the Supreme Court recognizing this notion and whittling away at the over-broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause (see US v. Lopez, 1995; US v. Morrison, 2000). These cases significantly limits Congress's power to use the Commerce Clause to pass laws that control matters traditionally left to the states (namely crime control). Through the use of the Necessary and Proper Clause, as well as the Commerce Clause, the US govt has consistently stripped the states of their Constitutionally reserved powers. The sad thing is people in our country don't care- as long as they can go lease (don't even get me started about how lease deals are the biggest legal scam to come along since God knows when. If a peson "purchases" something they have significant rights; under a lease you have shit) a new Beamer. Our country really is full of fat lazy bastards.

 

[Priapologist]

penguinsfan and Texan,

Are either of you Libertarian?

 

[penguinsfan]

No. I like a lot about the Libertarian Party, but don't see their ideas as realistic at this point when the people have become so dependent on government handouts and when massive amounts of wealth and influence are concentrated in the hands of so few. The blunt truth of it is that if we did away with the government handouts completely, some people would collapse into a state of personal chaos to the point where crimes rates and other social costs would rise. I think that's one of the reasons why Canada has such a lower crime rate. They do take care of their own in a better way, although I detest the concept of welfare for a long-term income. At the same time, no one could seriously tell me that strong laissez-faire economics would open up opportunities for anyone in the middle class. Those with Bill Gates and Wal-Mart wealth would be able to smother any of the rest of us away. So, I think it's tragic that America has deviated so far from the libertarian principles that it was founded on, but I think we would suffer severe consequences if we reinstated them.

As I write this, I am a registered Republican. I would like to change to the Constitutional Party, but that would be a throw-away vote. I am considering swithcing my registration to the Democrat Party as really little more than a protest. If I had to go down the issues line by line, I probably still agree more with the Republcian platform, but they're not acting like Republicans...more like stereotypical Republicans. Much of what has been done lately, such as the border policy changes in 2007 and the bankruptcy "reform" can only be described as Stalinesque.

I am beginning to realize that our two party system has two parties: Really Sucks and Even Worse. Whether it is the Democrats or Republicans playing either role depends on how long they've been in power and how arrogant they've become.

 

[Texan]

No. I like a lot about the Libertarian Party, but don't see their ideas as realistic at this point when the people have become so dependent on government handouts and when massive amounts of wealth and influence are concentrated in the hands of so few. The blunt truth of it is that if we did away with the government handouts completely, some people would collapse into a state of personal chaos to the point where crimes rates and other social costs would rise. I think that's one of the reasons why Canada has such a lower crime rate. They do take care of their own in a better way, although I detest the concept of welfare for a long-term income. At the same time, no one could seriously tell me that strong laissez-faire economics would open up opportunities for anyone in the middle class. Those with Bill Gates and Wal-Mart wealth would be able to smother any of the rest of us away. So, I think it's tragic that America has deviated so far from the libertarian principles that it was founded on, but I think we would suffer severe consequences if we reinstated them.

As I write this, I am a registered Republican. I would like to change to the Constitutional Party, but that would be a throw-away vote. I am considering swithcing my registration to the Democrat Party as really little more than a protest. If I had to go down the issues line by line, I probably still agree more with the Republcian platform, but they're not acting like Republicans...more like stereotypical Republicans. Much of what has been done lately, such as the border policy changes in 2007 and the bankruptcy "reform" can only be described as Stalinesque.

I am beginning to realize that our two party system has two parties: Really Sucks and Even Worse. Whether it is the Democrats or Republicans playing either role depends on how long they've been in power and how arrogant they've become.

It's like you stole my thoughts... I am 100% agreement with everything you say here.

 

[penguinsfan]

It's like you stole my thoughts... I am 100% agreement with everything you say here.

Damn, I'm good! lol

 

[80sBaby]

no one has ANY opinions...

America is FOUNDED on equality and democracy, but EVOLVED into its exact opposite...the few rule the many...doesn't sound very democratic or equal to me...

Actually America was founded on a Republic, and there really is no such thing as equality except which every individual should have an equal right to their own life and freedoms. Otherwise equality doesn't exist, and certainly not in the market or any other talent-driven career.

 

[80sBaby]

At the same time, if we have liberty to do what we want to do with our lives, then we are not going to have economic equality. Those that are smart enough to see trends and capitalize on opportunities will soon blow past most others.

Yes, that would be a free market working at its best. Liberty allows the individual to use ones talent to the best of their ability, but the more talented rightfully have the gift to surpass the market competition. The reason the established retails of the world (Walmart, etc.) hold a lock on the market is because of gov't interference. Gov't didn't get them their national/international stature. They did it through hard work and persistence. But for them to remain at top I'm pretty sure there is political maneuvering going on. In other words, in a truly free market, those who dominate the market would be consistently under threat by other manufacturers who could produce the same or better product at a cheaper price. That would be the free market working to its maximum benefit. But it's the other way around. Therefore the more talented get suppressed.

Short answer: America was founded on religious freedom and liberty, NOT what we would literally call equality, in a financial sense.

Or freedom from religion. Maybe that's what you were trying to say.

 

[80sBaby]

Adam Smith ("The Wealth of Nations") and supporters of a free market to this day do not see a "constant conflict and friction" between a democratic political system and individual ambitions. Or would it be more accurate to say that a democratic system can effectively control excessive "greed and power" by individuals (monopolies) or groups (oligopolies).

Anyone have any thoughts?

Greed in itself isn't necessarily bad since every individual ought to have the freedom to make as much or as little as they want. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But power over others via market controls and forced prescription is another thing. Gov't has no right to control anything. You can reasonably say the animal kingdom has more freedoms than humanity, and gov't certainly has no right to control others. Gov'ts only role was to protect individual rights. Suffice to say they blamed the growing problems on freedom, which was incorrect because it was gov't manipulation of the free market that damaged things. That reasoning was hiding behind hidden payouts in exchange for controls. The free market provides its own safety net of checks & balances. When there is no governmental "system" to exploit, it makes it much harder for a business person to do any exploiting. They would no have to rely on reputation because without a system to payoff, it becomes impossible to manipulate controls when there is no system to enforce. The good nature of the majority, the consumer, buy on reputation. Therefore the evildoer is flushed away to the free market trends controlled by reputation. I know I'm rambling, but I hoped that made some sense.

Note: Reputation is still an essential part of a controlled market, but in a free market the hierarchy might one day no longer be in that same position.

 

[Girthius]

To answer all this..just look at the symbol on the back of an American 1 dollar bill........a free mason symbol!There the ones calling the shots, and they do have major plans for the USA and the world........and it ain't good!!So as far as equality etc., it will be no more, in a few years!Society will become more like a prison,and us being the prisoners!This is actually becoming reality,day by day......but most can't see it or don't believe it to be possible.....this comes from being structured in your thought....by those in power!!Once you are structured in thought, according to those in control, you will simply turn your back on people such as I!Good luck!

 

[penguinsfan]

Yes, that would be a free market working at its best. Liberty allows the individual to use ones talent to the best of their ability, but the more talented rightfully have the gift to surpass the market competition. The reason the established retails of the world (Walmart, etc.) hold a lock on the market is because of gov't interference. Gov't didn't get them their national/international stature. They did it through hard work and persistence. But for them to remain at top I'm pretty sure there is political maneuvering going on. In other words, in a truly free market, those who dominate the market would be consistently under threat by other manufacturers who could produce the same or better product at a cheaper price. That would be the free market working to its maximum benefit. But it's the other way around. Therefore the more talented get suppressed.

That is absolutely true. Sweetheart deals and lobbyists keep the system from being completely equal. That is not to say that capitalism and America are bad, because they still provide more liberty than many other situations out there, but to pretend it's perfect is naive.

Or freedom from religion. Maybe that's what you were trying to say.

Freedom from religion altogether, absolutely not. Freedom from a specific church (Church of England), absolutely.

 

[80sBaby]

That is absolutely true. Sweetheart deals and lobbyists keep the system from being completely equal. That is not to say that capitalism and America are bad, because they still provide more liberty than many other situations out there, but to pretend it's perfect is naive.

Freedom from religion altogether, absolutely not. Freedom from a specific church (Church of England), absolutely.

Capitalism is the end all of economics. It is the only system to ever represent private, i.e. individual, interests. A truly free market will do a better job of protecting its workers and consumers than any gov't regulations. Socialism tends to believe a person is guilty before proven innocent. Note how gov't thinks the average business person is deemed a cruel, back-stabbing thief, who will house their employees in the most uncleanliness of environments.

Regards to religion, it is a private matter, and it is individual choice to decide if one wants religion in their life or not. I assume that's what you meant though.