or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by foregoneconclusion

  So you've never heard of the term "structural debt" as it relates to the private sector? You don't think it's possible for a company to pay off debt and continue borrowing at the same time?
  Of course you can keep spending money that you don't have. The private sector does it every day. Borrowing and lending is the engine of capitalism. Did the private sector vow to never borrow beyond their own capital again after the financial meltdown in 2008-2009? Of course not. The ability of corporate America to make money would slow to an absolute crawl without constant borrowing. It's really just a cynical double-standard to claim that the U.S. (which bailed out the...
At the end of the day, a corporation is focused on it's own self-interest, which by definition means it's not the best place to go for advice about what is best for the public interest.
  The reason the U.S. government has to borrow a trillion per year is because of all of the financial commitments it's already made in the past. Those don't disappear just because someone new took office. The last Bush administration budget ended up with a trillion dollar deficit, so that's the deficit level that Obama has had to deal with himself. Also, why would you consider the past four years to be a "terrible result"? The last time the U.S. economy contracted was in...
  What about all of the contradictions that existed in terms of those "inalienable" rights at the time (like slavery, voting rights, and women's rights)? All of the amendments to the Constitution going forward from that time? Those kinds of things don't really fit into the idea of the Constitution not functionally granting the rights to the citizens of the United States. There are far too many historical disagreements about the scope of the rights you're supposedly born...
  I'm a realist. You can talk all day long about inalienable rights, but when it comes down to it...you need a functioning representative government with the power to enforce those rights to have any real prospect of experiencing them. And even then, it might take hundreds of years before it really happens for everyone within your society, as in the United States.    As for Alan Greenspan, he literally seemed to believe that the private markets were like a giant poker...
  Representative government is quite obviously both of those things at the same time. The Constitution didn't write itself, and there's no reason to write it if it's not going to be enforced.
  Rothbard referred to his own ideas about society as "anarcho-capitalism". Some of the "highlights" of anarcho-capitalism include the complete lack of political representation of any kind, and a legal/judicial system that is completely run by private companies who are somehow in "competition" with each other. The whole thing is supposed to work simply because everyone agrees to be "non-aggressive" and that all individuals are "sovereign". It basically sounds similar to...
  You made a derogatory remark about rule by majority in regards to the NDAA as well, as if it were rule by majority that created it. In fact, it was both the majority AND minority creating it.   And, yes, our rights are granted by the government, because it's the government that enforces them. That's why Ron Paul wants to eliminate the ability of the federal government to enforce those rights outside of the public sector. No enforcement = no rights...unless you have the...
  The NDAA had bipartisan support (especially within the Senate), so it's not a very good example of the elected majority abusing the elected minority. Rather, it's just an example of bad legislation. However, the question to you would be this: if the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states, and you believe the NDAA is outside the powers of the federal government, then does that mean the states could pass NDAA style legislation?   As for...
New Posts  All Forums: