No, Teresa, that is not what he is saying at all. He says, "A general and tolerably equal distribution of landed property..." However, it is tempered with this, "the laborious and saving, who are generally the best citizens, will possess each his share of property and power and thus the balance of wealth and power will continue where it is, in the body of the people."

This is exactly the type of system we have in place today. The laborious and saving, the best citizens, possess their share of property and power. This in no way whatsoever advocates redistribution. Redistribution would move property and power to the exact opposite of "laborious and saving." People that get something for nothing are compelled to ask for more while doing even less.

I think you read with your heart instead of your intellect on this one.

Weird. I had never thought of Enron or World Com. or General Electric as being "Laborious or saving" But instead as being permenant engines of self-feeding wealth and power that shut out the common man from being in control of the sources of wealth and power, and rendered them instead perpetually reliant on the good will of those who hold the reigns of wealth and power for wages.

So what - you want everyone to have an equal interest in Enron and World Com and General Electric? "...pertetually reliant on the good will of those who hold the reigns of wealth and power for wages." ??? Whaaa? It's not "good will" that pays your wages. If you provide a benefit, you get wages. The better your benefit, the better your wages.

What you are describing is a world where highly motivated and highly intelligent people are being held back because the masses can't keep up.

I've got a great idea. Let's just give all our money to the government, businesses too. They can take what they need and then evenly distribute the rest to everyone in the country. OMG - you can't possibly believe that would be a better system. It's call communism - it's been tried over and over and over again. It's failed every single time.

Mark,

No, that's not what the quote describes. What it describes are laws where families are not allowed to accumulate land (the source of wealth in that society) and consolodate it all in the hands of one person in the family and disinherit the rest, requiring an increasing amount of competition for remaining opportunities for wage-earning with the lower classes. Which was happening in Europe at the time. Essentially creating a class ladder with only a few rungs at the top, and a great huddled mass with nowhere to go, no matter HOW talented and hard-working they were.

Since this was written in an agricultural economy, and the writer obviously (like many of his time) considered the agricultural economy to be the height of development, and didn't anticipate a manufaturing or merchant economy, he identified LAND as the source of wealth. The slightly more forward thinking Paine identified the means of manufacture as being an important source of wealth. But Webster was a pastoralist, so we have to recognize that and interpret from his priciples rather than his assumptions.

Webster was saying that the effect of having long-term entities (families, or corporations) being allowed to pursue pecuniary interests uninhibited over many generations, would lead to a destabilization of the power of the people, putting too much of it in the hands of the long-term entities.

He proposed a LEGAL REMEDY LIMITING THEIR ABILITY to consolodate (into a single entity) wealth and power beyond the lifetime of one person.

What you are describing is COLLECTIVISM...which is not at all what Webster is describing, and not at all what I was inferring.

What Webster is describing is legislating support for more people owning the means of generating their own wealth, as opposed to being beholden to others for wages. In his case, he would think of a yeoman farmer. In our time, we would think in terms of a small businessman with a few stores or a couple of apartment buildings, or a small manufacturing facility.

It certainly is the "good will" of the corporations that allows someone to have a wage or not. They use their political power to artificially hold down wages, they bust unions and generally do everything they can to disrupt the view that a human being "owns" their own labor. They use their economy of scale to drive out "laborious and saving" (but smaller and politically weaker) competition. Why do we have a tax system that punishes productivity and rewards investment? Not because Americans don't value hard work, but because the top entities in our society benefit from investment in the form of more wealth and more power to generate more wealth and more power. So you work all your life, and what's the only way to really get ahead? Give the money back to the company you earned it from, or some other company and let them use it and give you a fraction of what they make with it, and hope they don't steal it all in some Enron-type scheme.

You can work for a company all your life and in the end, what do you HAVE? If your labor earned you more than you needed to live, you might have investments, but not enough to say you OWN anything.

Now, if more people could work for themselves, they would HAVE something, but only a handful of businesses succeed. I am convinced that it is not due to laziness that mose common folk view winning the lottery as their best path to financial independance. It is just a much bigger pay-off and smaller risk than trying to start a business, or trying harder and harder to compete for fewer and fewer jobs that pay a living wage.

Do you think that people work 60 hour weeks and go for a decade without a vacation, and work themselves into ill health anymore because they think they are getting full dollar value for their labor and hope to succeed and get ahead? A few do, but more and more, it is simply to not be the next poor bastard out the door.

But anyway, don't just take my word for it. Go to the CIA webpage and read what they have to say about America. They describe America's greatest drawback to stability as being the consolidation of too much of the countries wealth into the hands of too few of the individuals.

Teresa

Thanks for explaining your views more clearly. I agree with some of your points. However, I'm not sure what exactly can be done about this. I would think that a persons "lifetime" could be described as 100 years. The companies you mention were formed, grew, and did all their damage in a far shorter time span. Even if you narrowed the span to 50 years, you still have Microsoft, Google and a host of other very large and powerful corporations.

And, you're going to laugh at this - I'm laughing out loud as I type it, isn't this what anti-trust laws are all about? I'll give you time to regain your composure.

Seriously, don't you think that if anti-trust laws were enforced in their original spirit, that much of these problems would be solved? Nearly everyone agrees that competition is a good thing. There is a fine line between keeping a society free and limiting the power of business - and a lot of money to be made by blurring it.

The government holds much of the culpability here, too. They do not get a pass. They want more power and money, just as some of these corporations. How can the government get more power if they help limit the size and power of corporations? The short answer is that they can't. Governments want to grow (albiet for different reasons) just like corporations want to grow.

So we're getting screwed by both! That's because big business and government are living in the same house and sleeping in the same bed. I believe in a much smaller government. The less regulations the better. I believe in a free market - a truly free market. How is it the Google is able to play in the same sandbox as Microsoft and succeed? Free markets, that's how. In a truly free market, competition will keep the power of corporations in check. I'm not saying that we have a truly free market system in place. But the answer lies in less government involvement, not more.

So while I think we agree on some issues when it comes to business, we certainly disagree on the answers.

Mark,

Thanks for being patient with me. I AM trying to argue with one lung tied behind my back (bronchitis). :-)

I might add a caveat to your argument that a person's "lifetime" is 100 years. It is TODAY, but that is recent. At the time Noah Webster was writing, the lifespan was very much shorter...especially in tidewater Virginia where we saw many "family mergers" result in huge blocks of wealth controlled by a few families.

"Seriously, don't you think that if anti-trust laws were enforced in their original spirit, that much of these problems would be solved?"

That IS indeed what anti-trust laws are for, and you say that they are not being enforced as they are intended, but why not? Well, a lot of industries that used to be heavily regulated to encourae fair competition were DEREGULATED in the interest of competition. I am thinking in particular of the media. Obviously, this did not benefit the consumer, or the industry. Only the handfull of people and companies that managed to consolodate their holdings. Before, their wealth was not limited, but their ability to turn that wealth into controlling power was.

I think the answer lies less in the emphasis that you place on a "free market" (preventing monopolies in a certain aspect of the market) and more on the subject of fair competition. Just as natural law provided a naturally level playing feild on which admittedly unequal organizms could compete, so society (according to the philosophy of the founders) should minimize unnatural advantages and disadvantages.

I don't think the growth of government has as much to do with power-grabbing on the part of the government, as it does with the growth of our country, the growth of our economy, and the growth of the complexity of our society as part of a global economy and growing technology. Sure there are some abuses, but I don't think they account for a large part of the growth of government.

What I find alarming about the calls for smaller government, is that the government described would remove the primary recourse that individuals should have against much more powerful entities such as corporations, or other governments or terrorist organizations.

Instead of shrinking the government arbitrairily, I would emphaize putting that power more into the hands of the people by stressing public policy that gives more advantage to productivity over investment, reduces the impact of inherited wealth, encourages small businesses and limits the ability of companies to infuence the government by insisting on transparancy in government...just as a start. Then people could vote accordingly. If a politician pursues a corrupt policy or participates in too much pork spending, he should be exposed and voted out of office as an embarrassment.

Kind of like if you have a mad-man driving the car, you daon't say "we need a smaller car." You change drivers.

Individuals would object less to the power of the government if that power was under their control, and a more-or-less equal distribution of power would make the misuse of that power over any one segment of the population less likely.

Competition is good, but healthy competition is the key. Competition isn't magic.

Teresa

All very good points. Who benefited from the deregulation "in the interest of competition" (I just had to put that in quotes because I don't believe it for a second)? Certain companies and definitely the government. Ok, maybe not the government, but the people in the government who get their pockets lined with lobbyist cash. I swear if money was removed from politics...

I'm not hearing the same calls for smaller government as you. One of the prime tenants of our government is to protect the individual liberties you say would be threatened. I'm not asking to "arbitrairily" shrink the government, just have it abide by the constitution. Most entitlement programs - gone! Federal $$$ in education - gone! IRS - gone! The federal government was initially setup to receive it's funding through import and excise taxes. Social Security - phased out - then gone!

Sorry - got on my soap box there. My point is this, the federal government has taken on way more responsibilities than it can possibly hope to enforce. It desperately needs to "get back to basics." The federal government has very few powers granted to it in the consitution - protect the states from foreign invasion, protect it's citizenry from unfair actions taken by other citizens and the states, regulate interstate commerce.

Sure, I'm putting in in simple terms but that's about it. All else belongs to each state.

BTW - I love your comment, "If a politician pursues a corrupt policy or participates in too much pork spending, he should be exposed and voted out of office as an embarrassment." hmmmm - that would include about 90% of all politicians at the federal level. They HAVE been exposed and no one cares! Or they're paid not to care...

Man I'm such a Cynic these days. I think for the most part we agree with each other. It's just the finer points...

Mark,

If we followed your plan, I would insist that Minnesota be able to close our borders and control immigration of people from other states. Our welfare, education, and education programs are excellent, and we already have enough people moving here from other states to take advantage of it. It would get a lot worse under that scheme.

I mean "Welfare and education"

Anyway, the argument for the income tax is that the constitution says that the Congress has the right to levy all such taxes as are necessary for the general happiness of the several states. That the PREFERRED meathod was import and excise taxes at the beginning does not cause it to be a constitutional mandate. the big provision is that the tax rates be consistant throughout the country and that they not unduly affect one state over the others.

The problem that I have with the income tax is that it unduly burdons the middle class. If the tax structure were made more progressive, then those who benefit most gretly from society, who are given the most advatage and benefit of the social structure, would pay more for it's maintenance.

In the interest of saving time, I'll stay away from the tax debate. Let's just say that we both agree there is something broken with the current system.

About your argument that Minnesota would be able to "close [its] borders and control immigration..." - That's just bunk. I don't know where you got that idea.

Article IV - Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

There are other articles that control interstate commerce and taxation and allow for free travel between states.

Our welfare programs are very far from excellent. They are rife with fraud and waste - and unconstitutional. Education is not the responsibility of the federal government either. Both these issues, under the 10th amendment, are reserved for the states. Your state driven welfare and education system in Minnesota would be unaffected under "my" (the original) plan.

What's wrong with Minnesota's social progams? Do you really think they could be made more efficient than they are under Pawlenty's endless cuts? If anything, they cover too few people! Please identify the passage in the constitution that says Minnesota cannot have a welfare, education, or public health program? I've only read the Federal constitution, but I'm pretty sure that Minnesota's says no such thing.

There are some states that, if the Federal government didn't mandate and fund social programs and education, would have even less than their already minimal programs. Thus, people whould want to leave those states and go to states with better schools, better social saftey-nets, and better health public health records (as they already do, but it would become more)

I don't see why Minnesota, if responsible for the welfare of it's own poor, badly educated and disabled should have to take the poor and badly educated and disabled of other states, just because those other states don't do anything to help them.

If the federal government doesn't require standards on these fronts, then they can't require us to take on immigrants from other states that we don't want. I mean, I would be for allowing SOME people to come in, but I'd definatly want us to be able to choose who we let in , how long they can stay, and be able to kick them out if they become criminal or break laws and such. Just like our country taking in unfortunats from other countries. It should be done in an ordely fashion.

Teresa

Calm down... ;)

I didn't say that Minnesota cannot have a welfare, education, or public health program. In fact, I thought I said quite the opposite. The states have the right to setup these programs if they wish - and each and every one of them has. Education, in particular, is a staple of states responsiblities.

You said, "I don't see why Minnesota, if responsible for the welfare of it's own poor, badly educated and disabled should have to take the poor and badly educated and disabled of other states, just because those other states don't do anything to help them." I don't either, I guess Minnesota would have to change it's policies to stay financially stable, wouldn't it?

If Minnesota was the only state offering something for nothing, then you're probably right. People would flock to the state to get the free handouts. The state would buckle under the financial strain. On this we clearly agree.

So why doesn't the same hold true for the entire country? Our social programs are over 42% of the federal budget. This nation is going to buckle under the financial strain of handing out undeserved benefits.

Your last paragraph clearly demonstrates your socialist views. We (the USA) simply cannot continue on this journey of social programs. It can only end in bankruptcy and depression.

Mark,

This is very confusing.

I said Minnesota had excellent programs.

You said they sucked and were wasteful and unconstitutional. I asked you to explain how they were unconstitutional.

Now you say that you said no such thing, and that I should calm down.

very confusing.

Now, as to statement that Minnesota would have to change it's policies...it most certainly would. I would not want the quality of life to go down in Minnesota, and I suspect that enough Minnesotans feel the same way. What you are basically saying is that states who wanted to maintain a high level of quality of life and society would not be able to, and that's a good thing? Not so much. If it is unconstitutional to have a uniformed minimum of social standards, as you say - then I would have to be for allowing other states to turn into sucking shitholes if that's what their citizens want, but I don't want MY state to go that route. So, instead of feeling like I have to let my state sink to the lowest common denomenator, I would urge my state to put a limit on the number of people who could come into our state requiring service.

What would let us be able to maintain our high quality of life and serve all segments of our society would be to keep people from coming in. Control the immigration from other states. As the US now controlls the immigration from other countries. We don't let just anyone in, and we don't let just anyone stay.

In Minnesota, we DO have good schools, and good public health and a way for people who are too old, too sick, or who need retraining to have a chance to meet their daily needs. Whatever you think of our programs, they are good programs except they should cover more people. If other states decide not to do that, they should have to deal with the consequences.

I don't know where in Minnesota you live (I didn't even know you lived in Minnesota), but I grew up in a town where there were a lot of people on welfare, and it was not usually about "free handouts" it was to get through lulls in seasonal work, a way of coping with temporary lay-offs, a way to live even if Social Security rejected your disability claim, but you were too sick/injured to work. I even know several women who went on welfare so that the county could do the work of tracking down their kid's dead-beat dad everytime he ran and hid, because the county had resources and could actually DO it. The county got to keep the money collected (including back child support), so they didn't lose anything for these women being on welfare.

Two of THOSE women were on welfare (for the kids) until they finished their degrees, and now they have paid MANY TIMES more in taxes than they ever took out (one makes about $100,000/year now, and is happy to pay her taxes)...plus the county got every penny back from the dead-beat dad's checks.

I know of a woman who was on Minnesota care and worked full time providing everything else for her and her son, but when she was cut from Minnestoa Care, she could no longer afford her medication for bi-polar disorder. She lost her job, and her child was taken away and put in foster care because she was too crazy to take proper care of him. She's back on her meds now, and doing better, but in order to "save money" the state created a bigger and more expensive problem for everyone.


If you want to call my views socialist, I guess that's your perogative, but I think you lack understanding of just how old the priciples are, that say a society has a responsibility to care for those who cannot care for themselves. You are not alone, however, there are many nationwide organizations that agree with you.

Have you checked out Grover Norquist since our last conversation? He is the most recognized and outspoken anti-tax activist in the country. Just do a google search.

Mark,

Actually, here's link to an article that gives a pretty good overview of his efforts up until about 2001 (when it was written) You'll have to cut-and-paste it into your browser.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010514/dreyfuss

Teresa

I guess we were talking about two different levels of government. When I said "unconstitutional" I meant at the federal level, not the state.

I hope that clears it up a little for you. If you re-read much of the debate here, I think it'll make more sense now that you know...

The states should be more free to determine the type of system they need. I wouldn't think you'd have to worry about other states being "shitholes" as you described - but that would be their perogative. They would soon find out that no one would stay, however - forcing a change.

You named a few good examples of how these programs have actually helped people in need. I'm sure you or I could find many, many more. What we could both easily find as well are many examples of fraud and waste - on a grand scale. This is the problem I have with government programs like this. Let's be clear, when I say government - I mean FEDERAL government.

Now I'm off to read your post that is "just for me."

BTW - I still don't think our views are so out of whack with each other that we couldn't - if we were in charge (boy don't I wish) - strike a solid compromise.

Mark,

OIC. Yes, that DOES make more sense now. Thanks.

Mark,
just a couple of thoughts that may or may not be useful (and may or may not be perfectly in context):

"The states should be more free to determine the type of system they need. I wouldn't think you'd have to worry about other states being "shitholes" as you described - but that would be their perogative. They would soon find out that no one would stay, however - forcing a change."
I'm not sure what kind of change you might have in mind, but I don't think this works. Most states that are in bad shape stay in bade shape because the poor can't afford to move. If they move they loose a lot. Family and social connections that are necessary for wellbeing and services like babysitting, driving to work when the car breaks down, Wednesday leftovers etc. also, many can't sell their homes so they loose the security of housing and have no equity to try and buy another house with. One often needs several thousand dollars to start over in a strange place: first and last rent, phone and utilities, time to look for work, etc. Then there is just the sense of isolation that can break the human spirit.

"We (the USA) simply cannot continue on this journey of social programs. It can only end in bankruptcy and depression." The great depression came without the help of social programs. I'm not saying that social programs can't cause depression but lack of social programs doesn't ensure against them. Furtermore I can't see how keeping a workforce healthy, educated and mobile could fail to increase the nation's productivity. On the contrary, I think the vast number of people who are sick, uneducated and unable to get to where work is (see above comments) is one of the biggest drags on our economy. The problem with social security isn't its existencebut the way it's funded. The program has kept millions from being homeless. This is good. Food programs have made children healthy enough to eventually contribute to society. I understand WWII is what gave rise to such programs when the gov. realized too many citizens were too malnourished to serve. These programs aren't handouts, they are investments in people. some ventures pay off in the end and some don't. Overall, they seem to be paying off. afterall, we have a life expentecy that rivals Cuba. : )