This book has aged far better than the Communist Manifesto, both in terms of the applicability of the theories found therein, and in terms of the respect with which it is had by the general population. However, having read it, I find the general application of anarchy libertarianism to be functionally hilarious. Smith neither advocates nor evidences for the kind of magical 'free market' thinking espoused by today's captains of industry.
What he does do, is show with stunning thoroughness, the ripple effects of limits by the state on resources that are artificially placed or by private individuals in such a state or by circumstances. He does indeed show the nature of a TRUE free market, which is allowed to operate on its own and show the historical real world examples that allow one nation to prosper and another to perish.
The level of research he does is also fascinating, especially understanding that he lived in an age which required months of travel and had no form of instantaneous communication. To know all of the things he did about the American colonies, China, India etc, he had to talk with people who had been there or travel there himself. It is understandable that it took him as long to write it as he did.
Having said that, Smith himself was quite the philosopher and was a good and charitable man. Nothing at all like many of capitalism's more ardent defenders in this day in age. Explain to me, upon reading this book, how the CEO of a cooperation, as an agent of that cooperation is able to justify an 8000% ROI that is sufficiently greater than the base salary man below him?
Smith talks at great lengths about the value of having a skilled labor force and a middle class which has a lot of money. In fact, he actually shows the damage of stratification for locking up capital in silly ways. When I read "The Wealth of Nations" I certainly don't picture Ronald Reagan and if I do, I DEFINITELY don't picture George W. Bush and tax cuts. The dangers of deficits are certain but the concept of a non gold based currency is post Smith.
At some point, I think economics moves beyond the 19th century, and while I think his comments on the nature of being and the value of wages and production are astoundingly insightful for his time, much of which is still applicable to today, I also think there have been many fundamental shifts since then, including such radical notions that women can vote, slavery is a bad idea, black people are not an inferior race etc. I say this not to imply that Mr. Smith should be faulted for advancing such ideas (he assuredly does not) but rather had these new technologies and ideas existed at his time, his thorough and universal work would certainly have incorporated them.
Mr. Smith is amazing. His so called 'disciples' are not. There some solid ideas in this work, but it should be regarded as 'holy' no more than that other 200 year old document, 'the constitution.'
Monday, April 30, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
[Constitution] The Mother of All Amendments
I have personally become convinced that unless we slide further towards democracy, our nation is doomed to dictatorship or oligarchy. My simplest evidence for this is the sheer corruption of the federal government. I don't care which of the two realities you live in, pick two of the three branches of government and you're likely to find them totally non functional. In my case, I think it is all three.
The Senate is the most dysfunctional legislature on the planet that has any actual power. It lost all legitimacy (to me at least) when they proved utterly unable to fix health care. Leaving aside the fluid question of rights, it is a vitally important national industry that is broken for a lot of people (like...millions) and it couldn't produce something better than the AHA. There are some things good in the AHA. But if THAT is the best the Senate can produce....
The abject failure to fulfill its basic duty to ratify or even reject executive nominations on a simple majority also to me says the body is not legitimate. The filibuster is not in the constitution.
The house has some still but is currently run by morons and was always designed to be a racaus collection of frat boys and sorority girls compared to the senate. Which it is.
The supreme court is likely to strike down the AHA. And while there are things in AHA that I don't like, the supreme court's reasons for doing so appear (on pre examination) to utterly ignore previous precedent. I know conservatives like to argue otherwise, but frankly, I really don't care about their interpretation of the constitution anyway. They look at the document and either think its fine or that we need to remove some amendments. Combined with Bush v Gore and Citizens United and the Supreme Court is an illegitimate institution. It does not represent the will of the people, either past, present or future but it does represent the will of the minority. It is a political institution that is supposed to be apolitical.
And the executive...the imperial presidency. Unaccountable to anyone. Able to ignore the law of the land and only paying lip service to our rights, both in the current president and the president before that.
The states have lost power (in part legitimately, because the south proved that they can't be trusted with power by ignoring the 14th amendment to the constitution for 80 years. The Voting Rights Act is totally legitimately focused on those racist southern states that thought segeration was a nifty idea.) However, they are supposed to be a counter to abusive federal power.
Most importantly, the people have lost power. The leadership is corrupt, and given the wealth of the nation, 9 justices, 500+congressmen and 200+ top cabinet posts and administrators are EASY to bribe with billions in lobbying money and reelection funds. When you say Cash is Speech, corruption is the result.
But that's the subject for another blog entry. For this one, I believe the root fix is to have a constitutional convention with one primary focus. If you want to do other stuff, go for it, but don't expect it to pass and insist that the things it produces are segmented. Many older folks who still view the constitution as some kind of sacred text are scared to death of an Article V convention because anything could happen. CRAZY people might mess with it.
Guess what? They're doing this now.
The way to do this is, state by state, pass an amendment which has no time limit and requires a 90% agreement of the state legislature or population to repeal calling for a constitutional amendment which says the following:
Amendment 28
Section 1 - The several states shall all provide a reasonable mechanism by which the population of that state may pass a popular referendum.
Section 2 - The people of the united states shall collectively have the right to place a popular referendum on a federal ballot providing said referendum shall collect signatures amounting 1% of the population.
Section 3. - No referendum may repeal or alter the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, thirteenth, fourteenth or fifteenth amendments; save the amendment clarifies or enhances the freedoms in a manner acceptable to the population affected thereof.
Section 4. - Any referendum must declare a method of adequate funding within the text of the amendment itself.
Section 5. - Congress and the several states may not aggregate amendments, but must allow each that qualifies to be voted on individually.
Section 6 - The period of election for the referendum shall not exceed one year after which the referendum qualifies for the federal ballot.
Section 7 - Congress and the several states shall have no authority to alter or rescind this amendment, though they may be given the power to enforce amendments individually created by the referendum process described within this amendment. The Federal Court may not declare an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional but may find a party (individual, state, federal or institutional) to be in violation of an amendment.
Section 8 - An amendment passed by at least 50% of the electorate in a single election will then be subject to another election approximately one year later. If the amendment passes with a majority in both cases, the constitution is amended.
Section 9 - Congress and the several states shall have the power to ensure by legislation that the provisions of Section 4 are properly enacted.
The Senate is the most dysfunctional legislature on the planet that has any actual power. It lost all legitimacy (to me at least) when they proved utterly unable to fix health care. Leaving aside the fluid question of rights, it is a vitally important national industry that is broken for a lot of people (like...millions) and it couldn't produce something better than the AHA. There are some things good in the AHA. But if THAT is the best the Senate can produce....
The abject failure to fulfill its basic duty to ratify or even reject executive nominations on a simple majority also to me says the body is not legitimate. The filibuster is not in the constitution.
The house has some still but is currently run by morons and was always designed to be a racaus collection of frat boys and sorority girls compared to the senate. Which it is.
The supreme court is likely to strike down the AHA. And while there are things in AHA that I don't like, the supreme court's reasons for doing so appear (on pre examination) to utterly ignore previous precedent. I know conservatives like to argue otherwise, but frankly, I really don't care about their interpretation of the constitution anyway. They look at the document and either think its fine or that we need to remove some amendments. Combined with Bush v Gore and Citizens United and the Supreme Court is an illegitimate institution. It does not represent the will of the people, either past, present or future but it does represent the will of the minority. It is a political institution that is supposed to be apolitical.
And the executive...the imperial presidency. Unaccountable to anyone. Able to ignore the law of the land and only paying lip service to our rights, both in the current president and the president before that.
The states have lost power (in part legitimately, because the south proved that they can't be trusted with power by ignoring the 14th amendment to the constitution for 80 years. The Voting Rights Act is totally legitimately focused on those racist southern states that thought segeration was a nifty idea.) However, they are supposed to be a counter to abusive federal power.
Most importantly, the people have lost power. The leadership is corrupt, and given the wealth of the nation, 9 justices, 500+congressmen and 200+ top cabinet posts and administrators are EASY to bribe with billions in lobbying money and reelection funds. When you say Cash is Speech, corruption is the result.
But that's the subject for another blog entry. For this one, I believe the root fix is to have a constitutional convention with one primary focus. If you want to do other stuff, go for it, but don't expect it to pass and insist that the things it produces are segmented. Many older folks who still view the constitution as some kind of sacred text are scared to death of an Article V convention because anything could happen. CRAZY people might mess with it.
Guess what? They're doing this now.
The way to do this is, state by state, pass an amendment which has no time limit and requires a 90% agreement of the state legislature or population to repeal calling for a constitutional amendment which says the following:
Amendment 28
Section 1 - The several states shall all provide a reasonable mechanism by which the population of that state may pass a popular referendum.
Section 2 - The people of the united states shall collectively have the right to place a popular referendum on a federal ballot providing said referendum shall collect signatures amounting 1% of the population.
Section 3. - No referendum may repeal or alter the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, thirteenth, fourteenth or fifteenth amendments; save the amendment clarifies or enhances the freedoms in a manner acceptable to the population affected thereof.
Section 4. - Any referendum must declare a method of adequate funding within the text of the amendment itself.
Section 5. - Congress and the several states may not aggregate amendments, but must allow each that qualifies to be voted on individually.
Section 6 - The period of election for the referendum shall not exceed one year after which the referendum qualifies for the federal ballot.
Section 7 - Congress and the several states shall have no authority to alter or rescind this amendment, though they may be given the power to enforce amendments individually created by the referendum process described within this amendment. The Federal Court may not declare an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional but may find a party (individual, state, federal or institutional) to be in violation of an amendment.
Section 8 - An amendment passed by at least 50% of the electorate in a single election will then be subject to another election approximately one year later. If the amendment passes with a majority in both cases, the constitution is amended.
Section 9 - Congress and the several states shall have the power to ensure by legislation that the provisions of Section 4 are properly enacted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)