Real Republic
In a real democratic republic, there would be a mechanism for ensuring that the proper classes dominated in their respective branches of government. Where there is nothing but free election for any branch, it doesn't matter whether there are three branches or fifty, the power will accumulate to one center and the tyranny of the majority will prevail as it always has. Throw reason out the window. Tyranny has been and always will be the emergence of specious and arbitrary rules and laws that defy reason and the well functioning of society. The majority will always pick idols and icons as their leaders and reasoning individuals will be excluded from political power. We know this from our own experiences, and it has been written down in every major age.
Our founding fathers understood the principals of a functioning republic (see classical liberals). They learned them from the study of history, not from any dogmatic rhetoric. These principals seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle, perhaps after the populist revolt in the 1870s when the functioning oligarchy decided to jimmy the text books and eliminate any reference to what republics really were. John Adam's "Defence of the Constitutions of the Governments of the United States, A Response to the letter from Mr Turgot to Dr. Price", 1787 - 1788, is an excellent piece of work that should be read by every highschooler in the United States, or at least be a part of the Liberal Arts program for all undergraduate study. It shows clearly the reasons and the reasoning why any republic that hopes to stand must balance the political power between all three classes of society. The result is a mutual stand off, and while everyone may not get their most glorius wish, no one is oppressed.
As to glorius wishes, Nicollo Machiavelli wrote: "Liberty is a funny word, some use it to justify licentiousness, these are typically the commoners, others use it to justify slavery, these are typically the nobility". This is ultimately the same exact sentiment covered by Karl Marx's 'first contradiction of capital', where capital is tripped up when some choose to underpay labor, since labor is also the consumer with a different hat. When labor is underpaid, consumption drops, someone gets lots of money, but the sum total of wealth in the nation drops. Wealth being the sum of necessaries, conveniences and luxuries of life. The similarity is in the fact that labor wants unlimited pay and capital works towards minimal costs.
Today, for instance, credit cards are grafting wages. This is a perpetual problem that would be manageable if real capital had an outright political domination in the U.S. Senate. Piggybacking on Democrats or Republicans requires too many compromises, too much dependence on ones mutual adversaries in the power struggle. Capital needs its own political party, one that is in the open to show the people of this nation that capital is not in fact the bad guy. Capital is the source of this nations wealth - the source of all necessaries, conveniences and luxuries in everyone's lives (and if we include natural capital, everything is encompassed).
To get back to a republic can be attained only if a U.S. Capitalist Party is established and funded. There is already name recognition, unlike parties such as independents, populists, libertarians, greens and the like, which are words that don't mean anything to most people. The key to differentiating the three branches of the government, is first in establishing a third party and then through campaign financing.
If in the U.S. House of Representatives, the candidates are limited in their accepting of donations to say the $100.00 - $500.00 range per individual, there will not be a whole lot of business interest or bias represented. Splendid.
If in the U.S. Senate, the candidates are not limited in their accepting of donations, or to keep things fair, are limited to the $10,000.00 - %50,000.00 range, then capital will have a much greater chance of getting candidates that represent their issues. A differentiation is forming?
If for the U.S. Presidency, the government splits a fund, say in the $1,000,000.00 - $5,000,000.00 range, equally between the top four contenders (one for the complainy parties, just to seem fair), and other than the individual's own personal fortune, no other compaign contributions can be legally accepted. Then, the executive will be chosen fairly on their personal merits. Not that that has ever worked before... But with a real balance established between the three branches, a crappy executive won't be that big of a problem.
This was the intent of our government by the founding fathers. It is similar to the British, with their House of Lords, House of Commons and Prime Minister, which has lasted longer than our system. We have a serious threat to our freedom everytime one party takes all three branches. John Adams' most serious warning was - not to let all power accumulate to one center, or one faction. This is the basis of all forms of tyranny and the loss of liberty.
We all learn in high school that to solve a problem with three variables, we need three equations or else the solution is arbitrary. This is simple math. With two parties, if one uses an equal chance of either party winning an election over the three branches of government, all power accumulates in one center every 2.7 years. With three parties, all power accumulates in one center once every 12.5 years. Hence, if we have been witnessing power accumulating to one party about every 50 or 60 years with the two party system, with a three party system, it will take more like 225 to 270 years.
To prevent the excesses the two party system has been taking with capital, requires that capital assert a presence in the U.S. Senate where it can legislate against excessive credit inflating the money supply and pricing U.S. commodities out of the range of international customers. Legislation can be considered that finds a solution to Marx's 'first contradiction of capital'. A more experienced business mentality would go a long way toward balancing the budget, such that pork would be more carefully guarded against - out of mutual jealousy, yet beneficial programs, such as education and health care funded properly. The capitalist class in any society is more scientific, rational, reasonable, and just plain smarter than the other two classes... in general. Hence any nation that allows its Aristocracy to be absent from its government in any organized fashion courts error in judgement and plenty of economic waste.
The stock market has been flat for a long time, this is no fluke. Interest rates at both the business end and, surreptitiously, on the consumer end have been inflating prices and impoverishing consumers. International competitors are growing stronger daily due to the flagging value of the dollar, supported only by the value forced upon it as the currency of oil, but what is it costing us to support even this? We need to get back to a more sound politics, a more sound economics and a more stable and thinking society. We can't afford tyranny, where liberality is the mechanism by which society adapts to changing circumstances. What with fossil fuels running low and global warming increasing, while populations grow and diseases spread. We are in a time where adaptation and new ideas need a place to originate and emerge. We need a U.S. Capitalist Party.
Vote U.S. Capitalist party.
Oh, I found a nice link that supports much of the thought these writings of mine are based on, for those who havent done the reading I have - Classical Liberals
Our founding fathers understood the principals of a functioning republic (see classical liberals). They learned them from the study of history, not from any dogmatic rhetoric. These principals seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle, perhaps after the populist revolt in the 1870s when the functioning oligarchy decided to jimmy the text books and eliminate any reference to what republics really were. John Adam's "Defence of the Constitutions of the Governments of the United States, A Response to the letter from Mr Turgot to Dr. Price", 1787 - 1788, is an excellent piece of work that should be read by every highschooler in the United States, or at least be a part of the Liberal Arts program for all undergraduate study. It shows clearly the reasons and the reasoning why any republic that hopes to stand must balance the political power between all three classes of society. The result is a mutual stand off, and while everyone may not get their most glorius wish, no one is oppressed.
As to glorius wishes, Nicollo Machiavelli wrote: "Liberty is a funny word, some use it to justify licentiousness, these are typically the commoners, others use it to justify slavery, these are typically the nobility". This is ultimately the same exact sentiment covered by Karl Marx's 'first contradiction of capital', where capital is tripped up when some choose to underpay labor, since labor is also the consumer with a different hat. When labor is underpaid, consumption drops, someone gets lots of money, but the sum total of wealth in the nation drops. Wealth being the sum of necessaries, conveniences and luxuries of life. The similarity is in the fact that labor wants unlimited pay and capital works towards minimal costs.
Today, for instance, credit cards are grafting wages. This is a perpetual problem that would be manageable if real capital had an outright political domination in the U.S. Senate. Piggybacking on Democrats or Republicans requires too many compromises, too much dependence on ones mutual adversaries in the power struggle. Capital needs its own political party, one that is in the open to show the people of this nation that capital is not in fact the bad guy. Capital is the source of this nations wealth - the source of all necessaries, conveniences and luxuries in everyone's lives (and if we include natural capital, everything is encompassed).
To get back to a republic can be attained only if a U.S. Capitalist Party is established and funded. There is already name recognition, unlike parties such as independents, populists, libertarians, greens and the like, which are words that don't mean anything to most people. The key to differentiating the three branches of the government, is first in establishing a third party and then through campaign financing.
If in the U.S. House of Representatives, the candidates are limited in their accepting of donations to say the $100.00 - $500.00 range per individual, there will not be a whole lot of business interest or bias represented. Splendid.
If in the U.S. Senate, the candidates are not limited in their accepting of donations, or to keep things fair, are limited to the $10,000.00 - %50,000.00 range, then capital will have a much greater chance of getting candidates that represent their issues. A differentiation is forming?
If for the U.S. Presidency, the government splits a fund, say in the $1,000,000.00 - $5,000,000.00 range, equally between the top four contenders (one for the complainy parties, just to seem fair), and other than the individual's own personal fortune, no other compaign contributions can be legally accepted. Then, the executive will be chosen fairly on their personal merits. Not that that has ever worked before... But with a real balance established between the three branches, a crappy executive won't be that big of a problem.
This was the intent of our government by the founding fathers. It is similar to the British, with their House of Lords, House of Commons and Prime Minister, which has lasted longer than our system. We have a serious threat to our freedom everytime one party takes all three branches. John Adams' most serious warning was - not to let all power accumulate to one center, or one faction. This is the basis of all forms of tyranny and the loss of liberty.
We all learn in high school that to solve a problem with three variables, we need three equations or else the solution is arbitrary. This is simple math. With two parties, if one uses an equal chance of either party winning an election over the three branches of government, all power accumulates in one center every 2.7 years. With three parties, all power accumulates in one center once every 12.5 years. Hence, if we have been witnessing power accumulating to one party about every 50 or 60 years with the two party system, with a three party system, it will take more like 225 to 270 years.
To prevent the excesses the two party system has been taking with capital, requires that capital assert a presence in the U.S. Senate where it can legislate against excessive credit inflating the money supply and pricing U.S. commodities out of the range of international customers. Legislation can be considered that finds a solution to Marx's 'first contradiction of capital'. A more experienced business mentality would go a long way toward balancing the budget, such that pork would be more carefully guarded against - out of mutual jealousy, yet beneficial programs, such as education and health care funded properly. The capitalist class in any society is more scientific, rational, reasonable, and just plain smarter than the other two classes... in general. Hence any nation that allows its Aristocracy to be absent from its government in any organized fashion courts error in judgement and plenty of economic waste.
The stock market has been flat for a long time, this is no fluke. Interest rates at both the business end and, surreptitiously, on the consumer end have been inflating prices and impoverishing consumers. International competitors are growing stronger daily due to the flagging value of the dollar, supported only by the value forced upon it as the currency of oil, but what is it costing us to support even this? We need to get back to a more sound politics, a more sound economics and a more stable and thinking society. We can't afford tyranny, where liberality is the mechanism by which society adapts to changing circumstances. What with fossil fuels running low and global warming increasing, while populations grow and diseases spread. We are in a time where adaptation and new ideas need a place to originate and emerge. We need a U.S. Capitalist Party.
Vote U.S. Capitalist party.
Oh, I found a nice link that supports much of the thought these writings of mine are based on, for those who havent done the reading I have - Classical Liberals
posted by lou_srewlect | 3:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home