A federal judge issued a surprising decision that allowed part of an emoluments challenge to proceed toward trial. The opinion has been widely misreported, but still represents a rare win for those arguing that President Donald Trump is accepting prohibited payments from foreign governments at the various Trump properties. However, the decision is only on the threshold standing question and did not address the merits of the constitutional claim. Moreover, United States District Judge Peter Messitte dramatically narrowed the action to only claims related to the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C. These is considerable debate over the meaning of the Constitution’s “emoluments” clause. There are clearly good-faith arguments that such payments fall within the meaning of the language, but I remain highly skeptical. Even with the much reduced action, I think Messitte is wrong and that the action should have been dismissed in its entirety. Previous actions have been dismissed.
The plaintiffs argued that Trump is accepting emoluments in receiving revenue from his various businesses. No president has held the range of assets that Trump brought to office after his election. Thus, there were valid questions raised about the scope of emoluments. I simply find these claims too attenuated. Moreover, none of these Democratic leaders and Trump critics called for such challenges to the Clintons racking in hundreds of millions in person speaking fees or contributions to their foundation. The clause is not limited to Presidents:
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7518253/Screen_Shot_2016_11_22_at_1.14.57_PM.png?w=845&ssl=1)
Messitte’s decision on standing may be easier to support than any finding of an emolument, but I would still bet against the sustainability of these claims.
I read the language in the article, and also read the language quoted from the Constitution.
It appears to me that the Trump Hotel is who/what is accepting payments, in the form of room rent, from guests. This is not the same as saying that President Trump is accepting these payments. A hotel that he owns, either in whole or in part, is not an extension of him. It would be a stretch to conclude that the payments by guests for their rooms are a direct payment to the owner of the property.
But that may be an unnecessary point.
It may be a good thing that the judge has agreed to hear the case on a limited scope, to determine what the definition of emoluments is. When this case is resolved, it will give a definition of how the clause applies, and may have the benefit of saying that this issue does not create a problem. If so, then it would result in all similar cases being consolidated and dismissed.
It is a point I have made before. That the corporate veil would have to be pierced as a necessary part of this. I am glad to see someone else picked up on that!
That would be like presuming that the Clinton Charities are the same as Clintons. It would have to be shown that the Clintons used the charity to benefit themselves and/or maybe their cronies. I think it is a slush fund, and that they pay their operatives out of it, but it would need to be proven, legally speaking.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The corporate viel argument is interesting. But I still think you are on the wrong side.
People can litterally give Trump money. They can give the clinton’s money.
There is no crime and no emoluments issue.
It is granting special favors that is the problem, and that is a problem even if the recipient did not make some payment.
With Respect to CF, though the Clinton’s did directly financially benefit personally.
I do not think that is the real mechanism or intent.
The Clinton foundation is a sham charity (I do not have a problem with that so long as giving is voluntary).
It is really a sinecure for Clinton Alcolytes.
A generation of left wing nut political operatives has employment, and gets to wine and dine arround the world hob knobbing with the powerful and afflient and claiming to be doing good for the world at the same time.
And they OWE this to the clinton’s.
So we have depots and Oligarchs funding the charity – in return for special access, and favors.
We have the clinton’s using the charity as a giant personal perk, and to divy out the favor of a job to the next generation of Democratic operatives who will be beholden to them.
Frankly it is brilliant.
I don’t agree that people can give Trump money, just because. My understanding is that he has to fork it over along with any other gifts he gets.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Most of the time I am argument what the law should be. Not necescarily what it is.
Our law is a horrible self contradictory mess. If you want to follow someone interesting on Twitter there is a feed for “a crime a day” that posts the US Code for stupid crimes a new one each day.
My argument is that public corruption is not taking money.
It is performing your job in a disparate fashion.
That you may have taken money is evidence, but it is not the actual crime.
If free people wish to give their wealth to others, that is not my business.
If those in government treat specific individuals with differently – that is.
Even if Trump litterally owned and literally operated the Hotel – as opposed to owning stock in a corporation.
It would not be the payment of fees for rooms that would pose an issue. It would be profits from renting the rooms.
Someone has asserted that the hotels profits are being contributed to the Treasury.
If true there is nothing here.
If false, the profits would have to be excessive,
and finally there would have to be a benefit from government bestowed by staying at the Trump hotel or there is nothing there.
The remedies sought by the plaintiffs are absurd, the first being to try to impeach the President for violations of the Emoluments Clause (motivated by dislike of his positions on issues). The 2nd is to oblige a President to completely, permanently sell off all business-income-producing assets before swearing in. Looking back in history, this means Washington, Adams and Jefferson would have had to sell their farms, and have no familiar place to retire to after service. Why?…because all farms sell goods. I didn’t see President Obama sell off the rights to his 2 books, and certainly foreigners purchased these during his terms of office. A large book order could have been placed as a bribe, and nobody would have even noticed. So, how is it a problem for Trump International to be renting rooms to foreign visitors, especially under published room rates?
It would be very foolish to erect yet another extra-Constitutional barrier-to-entry for seeking the Highest Office. A lifetime spent building value in a business or income-producing property, were that to have to be sold off permanently, never to own it again, would eliminate most high-achievers from ever considering a run for President. We have corruption laws that can be applied if there is evidence of corruption, and don’t need to go way overboard with burdensome regulations to prevent it.
I’d give these plaintiffs a 0.1% chance of prevailing at SCOTUS.
The majority of Americans strongly dislike Fatso, not “because of his position on issues”, but because he’s mentally, morally and ethically unfit to serve. He brags about grabbing womens’ genitalia. He lies constantly, about almost everything. He cheated to “win” the Electoral College. He cheated people who did business with him. He doesn’t understand how government works. He demands personal fealty to him as a condition for serving as, for instance, FBI Director, which is illegal. When he doesn’t get it, he fires the person, which is also illegal when the FBI is investigating crimes he is accused of. He threatens and intimidates people to get his way. He won’t disengage from his businesses, like virtually all other Presidents have done. He is a xenophobe, a misogynist, a homophobe, and lacks the temperament to serve as the head of the armed services. He has pet insult nicknames for anyone who challenges him. He needs the adulation of the poor slobs who show up with MAGA hats on because of his emotional immaturity. I could go on and on, but what’s the point? Most Americans agree with me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Ypt-vKI2U
They can help you, Nutchacha.
Strongly disapprove is a plurality – not a majority.
Further by policy, Trump has plurality support for nearly all his policies.
Our disagreement with Trump is personal not Political.
I agree with some of your criticisms of Trump and did not vote for him for those reasons.
But contrary to your assertion he quite obviously did not cheat.
He won according to the rules.
no one has come forward indicating that force was used to alter their vote.
No one has come forward claiming that ballots were altered after they were cast.
I would like to see changes to our election process to improve its security, but democrats walked out of the presidential election commission so that is unlikely.
With respect to Trump’s business dealings – no one survives, much less thrives in business by cheating.
All free market exchanges are voluntary. You are not ever required to do business with anyone much less Donald Trump. Few will do business with people they do not trust.
Obviously you have little business experience.
Demands of loyalty are not “illegal”. All constitutional executive power is vested in the president.
If you are part of the executive and can not do as the president directs – for whatever reason, you must resign. You can resist to your hearts content – outside the executive.
If you think the president acts illegally or unconstitutionally – resign and speak out.
But you may not “resist” from within the executive.
The president is not god, but he is the boss. You can either do the job as asked or you must resign or be fired.
What Crime has Trump been credibly accused of ? What actual investigation of a crime that Trump is alleged to have commited has occurred ?
We have been at this for 18 months. There is hope on the left that someday their will be credible evidence of a crime – but hope is not the same is probable cause.
There is not even probable cause that a crime has been committed.
When you have some – come back and we can discuss how to proceed.
In the meantime what you have is a lawless witch hunt.
The early “investigation” has fairly effectively been destroyed. The Steele Dossier is the root of everything, and it does not meet the standard necescary for a warrant or an investigation, and the FBI has not been able to find evidence that would enhance its credibility.
While nothing Trump has done constitutes obstruction – and the broad interpretation of the law that suggests it is, would make Obama equally culpable for interfering with the Clinton email investigation,
as a separate matter you can not “obstruct injustice”. It is obvious at this point that the Comey/McCabe investigation was rotten to the core.
Insulting people who wear MAGA hats is a great way to ensure that Trump wins again in 2020.
Have you learned nothing from 2016 ?
The 2016 election forced many of us voters to choose, based on policy directions we favor, to vote for someone inexperienced in governing and lacking in Presidential dignity. That said, foreign policy has moved away from “naive idealism” towards “realpolitik”, immigration policy is moving out of “stuck in neutral”, tax policy has corrected major disadvantages to US-based corporations, the economy is doing very well. Liberal orthodoxy on a whole host of issues, having to achieved little more than good intentions and polluting our politics with ad-hominem demonizations at every turn, is finally losing its punch. A post-racial mindset is taking hold, whereby race and ethnicity doesn’t matter, and racial-excise-making and low-expectations are waning.
Do you know what the decider was for me in 2016? I honestly felt, based on Mrs. Clinton’s shrill accusations and condemnation of deplorables as “irredeemable”, that if she were to prevail, it would signal the end of meritocratic debate permanently…to be replaced with strident accusations and demonizations….and that, folks, is “game over” for our system of government by the people. Read up on the French Revolution of 1789 to understand where Mrs. Clinton’s polemical hate-stoking and alienation leads to.
When you grow older, you might begin to realize that leadership is not a popularity contest…it’s not primarily about “likes”. In normal politics, we debate policy issues, and try to get it right, but always accept each other and commit to remaining unified at the end of messy debates.
The deplorables remark damns not merely clinton, but the who current democratic party.
It is like Romney’s 47% remark but worse.
Romney argued that 47% of people were going to vote in their own self interests, and that was not republican.
Clinton argued that much of the country was to stupid, racist, and mysognist to vote.
Far too many democrats believe as Clinton.
That is evident by posts here.
It is evident by the fact that most democrats have learned nothing from 2016.
Democrats have won a few races since 2016.
Those in which they ran good candidates who ran from the left.
An emolument is a gift in return for the recipients excercise of the power of government specifically for your unique benefit.
There is no requirement that those in government have no other ties to the world.
There is no requirement that they do not benefit from government service – we are all benefiting from the better economy that has resulted in the first year of Trump’s presidency.
The best example would be a comparison to Clinton.
It is not clear how the Clinton’s personally benefitted from contributions to their charity – though I think many good arguments can be made.
It is quite clear that contributors to CF received special treatment from the state department.
That is the rule of man, not the rule of law.
It might be clear to some – though I am less sure, whether trump has financially benefited from being president.
It is not clear at all how specific people are benefiting from “gifts” to Trump in any form.
If no one is receiving special treatment, there is no issue, constitutional or otherwise.
Corruption is not giving something to others. It is not giving something to others and expecting something in return. It is applying the law or following your duties as a public servant differently depending on the person.
It does not matter whether they gave you a gift – that is just a motive – an explanation for improper disparate treatment.
I would further note that to be corrupt disparate treatment must be unique.
Treating illegal immigrants different that legal ones does not violate the rule of law.
Treating joe different from others is. The fact that Joe made contributions to your charity is just the motive.
Professor Turley, a coup d’etat is underway in America.
Citizens are not seeing the forest for the trees.
Shall Americans trade a trifle for their country?
SAD very sad that the very people here on this blog that try to justify anything Trump does as, nothing to see here. Are the same people that will run out and buy Trump’s new book….I made millions being President, and you can too….
Oh, get off your damn high horse! You are a frigging Democrat and as such, you don’t give a sh*t about the law. If it suits you, and keeps Democrats in power, you will disobey the law and import illegal aliens and then let them vote. If Conservatives try to speak at a college campus, you will say “Screw the First Amendment!” and pick up baseball bats and masks.
You will sit on hands while Hillary Clinton grabs “emoluments” by the hundreds of millions of dollars, while Secretary of State, and whistle, and shuffle your feet. Then, you flock to the ridiculous “hotel bills as emoluments” dumba$$ theory like it is sheer gold.
As a Democrat, the very notion of Truth is an anathema to you. All you bunch of crooks believe in is winning elections. So spare me your fake outrage and ludicrous pronunciamientos.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Looks like your hatred overrode any sense of balance!! I thought you were better than that 🙁
She must of nicked herself shaving; with her knives.
No. But I have taken to wearing the MTech around my neck when I am home. And the damn fell out of the sheath and landed on my foot the other day! Good thing I was wearing my tennies, or I would have a hole in my foot.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I believe it was General ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis who said, “Always carry a knife with you, just in case there’s cheesecake, or you need to stab someone in the throat.”
How true and wise a statement! I find myself constantly using mine. To open packages and envelopes. To cut apart soft drink plastic rings so sea gulls and ducks won’t choke to death. To separate hamburger patties. Open boxes. Clean my fingernails, although you have to be really careful with the MTech USA MT-20-14 Series Fixed Blade Neck because that little booger is some kind of sharp.
Oh, and it makes me feel empowered, as a woman. And safe!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Well there you go. Jake wants one now too. 😉
It’s not really hatred. It’s disgust. Sheer unmitigated DISGUST! In CAPITAL letters! Disgust from reading the literal tons of BULLSH*T propaganda and lies spewed out by Democrats.
On this very website, where on one thread you have fainting and swooning Democrats crying buckets of tears over a ludicrous “Hotel Fees as Emoluments” meme, because you know they are sooo concerned with the “law”, – – – you have another thread where Democratic attorney generals are trying to block a question on the census. The same question that was on Bill Clinton’s 2000 census.
So, no I am not “better” than that. If by “better”, you mean somebody who will pretend that Democrats are honest people, just to be polite. No, I am not at all “better” than that!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
There is nothing wrong with hating those who wish to use force to take the natural rights of others.
Oh, if I hated them, then I would have no qualms about saying so. I am pretty good about saying how I feel. But it is really is just sheer disgust for me. I can respect a good “spin” as much as anybody. After all, I work for a lawyer and we have to spin and twist stuff all the time, being careful not to cross the line in sheer lying.
But what disgusts me here, is the sheer hypocrisy and the insult to the intelligence. The whole “emoluments: thing is ludicrous under the circumstances. Crap, one could just as easily argue that campaign contributions to any incumbent are emoluments.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
While she made false but understandable overgeneralizations regarding democrats, I did not hear any “hate”.
Apparently you think “hate” means disagreement ?
I would further note that While I did not read “hate” in Squeekies remarks,
Hatred of those who would use force to restrict the natural rights of other is accepatable.
What is a “sense of balance” ?
I expect that people will allow anyone to make their arguments – that would be the free speech that Squeeky noted the left does not allow.
But you are not entitled to the attention of others, You need to earn that with good arguments.
Every oppinion is not equal.
We are ibligated to allow Nazi’s to speek if they wish.
We are not obligated to listen.
We are not obligated to balance Nazism with any other expression.
When it comes to certain people what Squeeky said was absolutely correct. Fishwings is one of those that has absolutely no concern for the law and is totally ignorant.
And. . . fishwings is one of those Democrats here who never deign to explain anything. Like most of them, they simply call names and smear and then disappear. Which is understandable when your Party is more of a religious faith than a reasoning group of adults.
Fishwings is like one of those Inquisitors of old, who would burn some Jew alive to save their soul, all while convinced that they were more moral than the Jew. Just because they belonged to the right party. Which at that time and place, was Christians. In today’s time and place, it’s Democrats, and they are not only more moral than us, they are smarter, too! Which, I can’t quite wrap my head around the idea that “smarter” people have to have safe spaces, and shut down Conservative speakers with baseball bats. That seems counterintuitive, at the least.
Plus, I did not just call Democrats crooks and liar and phonies. I deigned to give three examples, thereof in support.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Don’t you have crosses and books to burn?
And. . . fishwings is one of those Democrats here who never deign to explain anything. Like most of them, they simply call names and smear and then disappear.
Criminy, do I have your number, or do I have your number!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You are what you are, a openly vile filled racist and hatemonger that by your own definition needs things explained. By the way, I have never said I was a Democrat. If I said I was black then would I have your number?
Calling somebody a name in twice as many words still does not get you out of being a name caller and smear artist. I would suggest you should try again, except it would probably be pointless. You are simply not able to form cogent and articulable arguments. As, being a Democrat, you have never had to. You get your status simply by being a member.
Like I said, I have your number!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ad hominem is fallacy. It is not argument.
It is a logical error engaged by many, but most commonly today by the left.
“You are what you are, a openly vile filled racist and hatemonger”
I have not been following people here long.
I have found a few that argue poorly, and who are not good at critcal thinking.
I have not seen a racist yet.
I have seen a few hatemongers – on the left.
I do not care what you say you are. This is the internet. You could be a fat 13yr old male crossdressor for all we know, nor does it matter.
I care what your arguments are.
Those I have read that far are ad hominem.
That is not argument.
Do you have something important to contribute on an issue ?
Or are you just going to continue to label everyone you disagree with as a racist hateful, hating hater ?
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Ad Hominem, not argument.
“Don’t you have crosses and books to burn?”
FishWings, I am sure you have some of those crosses left over and hidden in your garage, but the books were probably all burned. Books are not something you seem to have an affinity with.
What she said!!!!
More garbage arguments.
I do not speak for everyone else – though many of those you are attacking could say the same.
Our arguments are based on facts and law. Not whether the target is republican on democrat, hillary or Donald.
I argue that the law must be construed narrowly, as anything more is lawlessm grasping that requires critical thinking.
But it should require nothing more than exiting your own bubble to grasp that it is lawless to apply the same law differently to democrats or republicans, the left or the right, Trump or Clinton.
I have no problem holding Trump to the same standard as Clinton or Obama for the same conduct.
I do not like Trump. He is not my idea of a good person.
I liked Obama. Until much of what was going on in his administration has gotten out I thought he was a good person.
Thus far Trump has been a B- president. Obama at best a C-.
Though Trump in many ways looks better than he is, because it has been two decades since any president was even slightly above average.
Regardless, apply the same law the same way to the same or very similar acts and atleast you will not be a hypocrit.
John, I would rate him higher not because of deeds, but because he has had to face both parties and the media. I don’t know of any other candidate that would likely have survived such odds. It’s a lot harder to reverse direction and speed up then it is to speed up in the same direction one is going.
You are entitled to your own rating.
I do not disagree with your points.
But I do not factor those things highly.
I care about what the president DOES, not what he says.
Trump has done some good things, some bad things, and some less clear.
The economy is strongly suggesting that Trump is doing better than Obama – but a year is not enough time to be certain of that.
If he sustains 2.5% growth he gets B-‘s.
If he sustains 3% he gets B’s.
If he can sustain 4, I will give him an A, and he may end up on mount rushmore, given how long it is since we have seen that.
Despite all the difficulties Trump faces I think he will be approaching a 3% economy and after the elections, if we see more sensible Congressmen, I think we could approach 4%.
I don’t like looking at the superficialities of candidates. That is why when I first saw Obama I read his books and looked more deeply. I realized long before the election that he was a bad person. My wife recognized it the first time she saw him stating he reminded her of those despotic leaders before she made her way to this country. I did the same for Trump, but I had had a head start since he was an important figure in NY for a long time and I have familiarity with the NY scene. I know he appears gruff and I know that he is not a perfect husband, but he always paid attention to detail and hired good people without concern for their race, religion, sex etc. I also have found that he is gracious. Obama looks good on the outside but is rotten to the core. Trump isn’t the most appealing fellow unless one is used to what goes on in NYC when one builds there. But on the inside, he is quite appealing.
I think if we had 4 years of HRC the economy would be dead in the water and our foreign policy would be being managed by a totally incompetent individual.
Despite the attacks from the MSM and the fact that the media protected Obama Trump has closed the gap between Obama and himself. 45% approve of Trump.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar29
I fail to understand this controversy. Emollients are a very good thing, providing necessary moisturizing, soothing, softening, and calming. I highly recommend emollients and it’s unfortunate that so many people feel a need to politicize everything.
Why do the Democrat’s emolument silliness stuff remind me of Mrs. Miller??? Is it the shrill and off key nature of it???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlI2gxvF-g
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Where do you get this stuff? Love it!!!
I stumbled across her today when watching covers of These Boots Are Made For Walking on youtube! I read wiki on her, and can you believe it, she had these two songs in the Billboard Top 100!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw07CDid0JM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqlX88H4_Cg
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Totally off topic but JT has a thing about football. I don’t pay much attention but aren’t the bears and lions football teams?
Lion Tries To Eat Man Found In Bean Soup, Bear Tries To Eat Lion, Man Now In Paradise
Published 1, March 29, 2012
Robert Biggs, 69, was in the Bean Soup Flats near Whisky Flats and wanted to get back to Paradise. The California man was watching a family of bears and had decided to go home when he was attacked by a mountain lion. However, before the lion could kill him, the mother bear ripped the lion off of him and fought the lion until it ran off. The mother bear then went back to her cubs and left Biggs alone.
The most important aspects of this story is that, months before 2012 season, the Bears Beat the Lions.
Once again the majestic Bears show their strength and transcendent power. A meat packer from Wisconsin did not save Biggs. It was a bear.
“Indeed, these so-called “iron triangles” of organized criminals, corrupt government officials, and business leaders pose a significant national security threat.”
The above is from a speech that Robert Mueller gave in 2011. This investigation understandably has a lot of people very worried, including Trump et al.
It’s worth a read:
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/speeches/the-evolving-organized-crime-threat
A common thread to the legal attacks on Trump are broad – often extremely broad interpretations of the law, and the constitution.
Broad interpretations are extremely dangerous and should be barred – with everything not just Trump.
We can fix law that is too narrow, too broad, or otherwise broken, by writing new law.
We can not fix interpretation that vaires with the judge, the mood, or the target.
Whatever you may think of Trump, rulings regarding him will not merely apply to future presidents, but often to the rest of us.
When it is trivial to argue that Obama, or Clinton did essentially the same thing and no one raised the issue, the argument is we are abandoning the rule of law for the rule of man.
The same of very similar act is either legal when Trump does it AND when Obama or someone else does,
or it is illegal for both. Further it is either legal for Trump and going forward, or illegal for Trump and going forward.
What we do not want is one law for those we like and different law for those we hate.
But….. sob….. that’s the main arrow in the quivering quiver of the left. Everything else has failed. they don’t even lie good anymore.
Here Trump has yet another lawsuit to contend with. And though Professor Turley is skeptical of this case, it shall require a legal response; thereby spreading Trump’s focus even further yet.
One has to ask how many legal cases a sitting president can handle at one time. This question becomes especially pointed when said president is known as a “difficult client”. Events this week suggest that talented lawyers are not real keen to work for Trump. Professor Turley himself has alluded to Trump as a “difficult client”.
Is your objective “the rule of law” or is it to disempower those you hate.
Those who dislike Trump or his policies are free to use every legitimate means to oppose those.
But legitimate does not include spurious legal challenges.
Further you should be very concerned about making bad precedent.
However broadly or narrowly the emoluments clause is applied to Trump it will be applied in the future.
If you think tying Trump in legal nuts with dubious claims is acceptable – will you feel the same when it is a president whose policies you support that is impeded ?
Regardless your argument is about as lawless as I can imaging.
Your goal is to handcuff the president and drive legal advisors away from him ?
I presume you are one of those who thought everyone who opposed Obama – or who agreed with what he wanted to do, but not his constitutional power to do so was racist.
Critical thinking requires being able to approach problems and issues in the same way – regardless of whether they are being applied to those people or ideas you favor, or those you oppose.
The actual truth does nto care whether you like it or not.
Is your objective “the rule of law” or is it to disempower those you hate.
Oh! Oh! Call on me! I can answer that! It is to disempower those he hates, who are mostly Republicans! He will deceive and spin and outright lie to promote the Democratic Party. Because he has no conscience, and right and wrong are strange and alien concepts to him. He lives for the Party!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“Is your objective “the rule of law” or is it to disempower those you hate.”
John, that is an excellent question that I hope Peter and others will answer. The rule of law doesn’t seem to hold much weight with all too many on this blog.
LOCK HER UP……but Trump gets a mulligan.
I have no problem holding Trump, Clinton, or anyone else to the same standard.
That standard is not – criminalize political differences, or ideology, or persuasion.
At the very least it is hold everyone to the same standard.
Better would be to construe laws narrowly. Particularly criminal laws.
I often find Trump offensive. I sometimes find him wrong as well.
As of yet no one has provided a credible allegation that he or those associated with him have committed any crimes – unless your definition of criminality is so broad as to require incarcerating the entire Obama administration.
I do not like it when Presidents put their fingers on the scales regarding criminal prosecutions – it is wrong when Trump does it. It is wrong when Obama did it. But it is not a crime, it is not obstruction of justice.
You are not ever going to convince me that any action that any president or prosecutor could do legitimately as part of their job, is criminal because they do not share your ideology.
Conversely, there are specific acts that Clinton inarguably performed that meet the elements of several criminal statutues 18 cfr 793(e,f)
There are further specific acts of Clinton that are illegal, though probably not criminal such as violating government record keeping requirements.
It is also inarguable that she lied under oath and lied in numerous court filings.
Though immoral these might not be criminal.
You do not have any of the same with regard to Trump. You have the hope that at some time in the future Mueller will uncover evidence of a crime that you can not even identify before hand.
We are 18 months into this and little progress towards tying Trump to any actual crime has been made, yet, the carnage among those who are going after him mounts.
Whether Mueller has any basis to proceed now, it is evident that DOJ/FBI had nothing when Mueller was appointed.
We are not supposed to appoint Special counsels for the purposes of chasing after leftist hopes.
We do not unleash the investigative power of government on its citizens just because we wish to.
We require credible allegations of specific crimes.
I do not think many people would have any difficulty demonstrating credible evidence that Clinton has commited a number of specific crimes.
I can not think of any allegation regarding Trump that has any evidence – aside from that hopey thing.
Allan, you must know the courts will decide what the “rule of law” encompasses with regards to Trump. If certain lawyers are abusing the courts, judges will respond with unfavorable rulings.
Peter, eventually the Supreme Court has to hear many of these findings. History tells us that certain circuits are overturned at all too frequent rate. Judges should not be playing politics with the rule of law, but it is quite apparent they are and eventually they will be overturned on most issues.
You might feel they have they have that right and perhaps they do, but that is not in their job description even though they think it their job. What they are doing is subverting the rightful power of the President and eventually this can lead to methodologies that aren’t as transparent as they should be (even if the actions are legal). I don’t think any of us want that. Our type of government is quite fragile and people that disregard the rule of law can eventually bring our government down so it is replaced with a more repressive type of government.
“Rightful power of the president..??” What are you talking about??!
Never in recent history have we elected a president who controlled a vast business empire. Obviously there are going to be conflicts when such a president retains control of that empire while serving in office. For that one reason alone we have always preferred government professionals for the office of president.
The Trump Hotel is literally 2 blocks from the White House! And ‘yes’ it’s clientele has been largely composed of Republican-related guests and foreign emissaries. That ‘should’ arouse scrutiny from the courts. To blow that off as no big deal is utterly cynical.
Peter, you seem to be reading a more recent textbook than I did, one that might be leaving out much of American history. Washington our first President along with his wife might have been the richest or at least one of the richest in the nation with large land ownership. We have not seen Trump in office use his wealth or properties in trade for access or power. That means Trump is following the law and the meaning behind it. You just don’t like him so you are willing to make accusations absent of proof of any action in office that is illegal.
“The Trump Hotel is literally 2 blocks from the White House! And ‘yes’ its clientele has been largely composed of Republican-related guests and foreign emissaries. That ‘should’ arouse scrutiny from the courts. To blow that off as no big deal is utterly cynical.”
What is illegal in that fact if true? I didn’t know that the question of party was asked on the registration form. The question I have is whether or not Democrats with their hate for Trump will stay in that hotel. Likely not or in reduced numbers. I took a quick look at the pricing and the prices are publically viewed seeming to be the same for everyone and I saw something indicating a price drop. Does Trump even own the land? I don’t think so. Does he own the hotel personally? No, it’s part of a large corporation of which this hotel you focus on is a tiny part and other investors exist in that corporation. Tell us what the crime is or are you making a crime up?
By the way, the hotel pricing isn’t that much different from the pricing of a comparable luxury hotel in NYC except it might be a bit less expensive. I’m looking for the crime, but I can’t find one other than I know of nicer places to stay.
Allan,
You are responding to desperate people that are not interested in rational, reasonable and logical arguments. You and John have presented excellent and civil arguments. Great work!
Thanks, Olly. I am well aware of what you have stated. I wish this blog was more oriented towards the law so a better range of viewpoints existed, but this is all we have. Maybe some that say nothing will learn a little while I better understand the working of the minds of some of the people here. John has a great command of the important points of what it means to be free and has an excellent understanding of the law.
Washington was ‘not’ among the richest of his time. There were many Virginia plantation owners in the same class as Washington. If one adjusts for inflation, Washington would probably be just a ‘basic millionaire’ today. Washington was also a main of exceptional leadership skills who built the Continental Army from scratch. Trump never served in the military nor did he achieve anything on par with George Washington. One shouldn’t confuse the two in any way.
The Trump Hotel is owned by the Trump Organization. They have a longterm lease on the historic post office. Trump and his family control that organization (though the company may include Russian investors). Trump, you may recall, refused to show his tax returns. What’s more, The Trump Organization is not a publicly held company. Therefore it’s exact ownership is not completely known outside Trump’s circle.
With regards to the Emoluments Clause, the courts will consider that matter. As I said, no president has ever had so many potential conflicts of interest. And Jared Kushner may have numerous conflicts himself. His company could possibly go under if it doesn’t get several hundred million in new investment. The fact that Trump appointed Kushner and Ivanka as Senior White House Advisors makes a mockery of that “drain the swamp” slogan, They ‘are’ the swamp if there ever was one.
Peter writes, “Washington was ‘not’ among the richest of his time.”
According to the history books I have read, he was. Of course some like to take issue, but generally what they are trying to say was it wasn’t his money, but his wife’s money that made him that rich. I decided to do a net search (for you) and the first one on the list said: “the richest US president, with an estimated net worth of $525 million in today’s dollars.” Whether it was his money or his wife’s, it didn’t make a difference. They were married while he was in office. http://www.businessinsider.com/george-washington-richest-president-in-us-history-2016-6
Yes, Washington didn’t have the amounts of money people have today, but such a comparison is ludicrous. The assets in the world at the time weren’t as large as they are today. With all this extraneous talk what you are trying to do is forget about what I actually said while inserting your own ideological points. Here is what I said: “Washington our first President along with his wife might have been the richest or at least one of the richest in the nation with large land ownership.” I will go a step further. In comparison to other’s of his time and country, Washington was richer than Trump and this conflicts greatly with the meaning of what you said in your initial comment. You go on to demonstrate the characteristics of our greatest President (or number 2 if you desire) and compare them to Trump while not providing the characteristics of Trump that have given him the ability in one year to reverse so much of what Obama did. Your dislike of the President has interfered with your intellect and has made you say things that aren’t true.
“Trump and his family control that organization (though the company may include Russian investors).”
The Trump family has control. I am an investor in private companies and I am by no means the largest share owner, however, I have a stake in that company so I keep my eyes open to protect my investments as do the investors in the Trump organization. Therefore, when you feel that large company is run exclusively by Trump you are totally wrong. Some of the investors are banks and by law, their investments must meet certain standards. Some of the investors are actually on site running the day to day activities. The company itself is under some of the strictest laws in New York City yet functions. All sorts of agencies have rummaged through the Trump organization looking for illegal or inappropriate activities as they do any time an investor is involved in such massive projects. But, you bring in the Russians, gratuitously, without the slightest knowledge of whether any exist or if they are even political “may include Russian investors”. You don’t have a leg to stand on. Take note you didn’t say may include the Swede’s. Such type of rhetoric (stealing an idea) is deplorable and beneath your ability to debate reality instead of the fantasies that occupy your dreams.
The rest of your rhetoric is no better. It is silly and almost like a tantrum of a child that didn’t get his way. Peter, you can do better. Why don’t you try?
Washington owned land approximately equivalent to several STATES.
Washington – Bzzt Wrong.
Washington served as a surveyor when he was younger and he used that position to buy and enormous amount of land, I do not think there was a single person who owned a fraction of the land that Washington did. Absolutely there were plenty of virginians with similar or larger plantations. But that was a small part of Washington’s wealth.
We tend to favor leaders who have had military experience.
Trump was only being compared to Washington in terms of wealth.
Trump is not washington.
You are not entitled to know whatever you want about others.
Trump chose not to provide tax returns – BTW that would only provide small clues to what most of the left wants to know. Tax returns establish income, and only in the broadest sense its source.
It only provides clues to ownership and sources of the type those on the left seem to desparately want to know.
Anyway, voters had the ability to decide if Trumps failure to provide taxes was important to them.
They decided it was not.
Trump’s tax returns are not going to tell you who else owns the companies that he owns.
At most they will tell you the portion of each company that Trump owns. That is all.
Further Trump is a shareholder in all these companies.
He is no longer part of the management or day to day operations of any of them.
The emoluments clause is not even applicaple – actually look up what an emolument is.
All things that you think are conflicts are not emoluments issues.
I think that Trump is less likely to run affoul of the emoluments clause than Washington – as Washington was not a shareholder in corporations. How owned outright property and plantations.
If you have actually bothered to look at the details of the Kushner Claims they are ludicrously stupid.
Kushner is not going under because a favorable loan can not be negotiated for 100M in debt on a building worth several billion dollars.
Further, as I understand it the trump family has bifurcated after the election.
Those with a role in government are not actively involved in the businesses, those actively involved int he businesses are not involved in government.
Kushner is not to my knowledge involved in refinancing the loans.
Kushner has been mostly quietly involved in diplomacy in the mideast that has been successful.
Interesting chart, Allan, on the richest presidents. But I question how accurately they can adjust for inflation. It claims that Jefferson was worth $212 million, yet he famously died broke. Today a person achieving that level of wealth would scarcely die broke. Surely they would still have a few million lying around. The chart also claims that James Madison had been worth $101 million. But Madison also died broke. In fact, his wife, Dolly, wound up taking handouts from their former slave! Again, a person achieving that kind of wealth today would manage to keep at least a few million.
So when they claim Washington had wealth of $525 million, i am skeptical. The range of financial services then was pretty limited by today’s standards. And it’s known that towards the end of the Revolution, Washington attempted to recover a runaway slave who had fled north. Would Washington have bothered to make that attempt had he really been that rich? Again I am skeptical.
With regards to The Trump Organization, officially it is controlled by the Trump family. But sure, bankers and investors may own a large stake. And Robert Mueller is currently probing that angle. It is known that most of the big American banks cut Trump off at one point. Which forced him to take his banking to Deutsche Bank, a concern known to be a favorite of Russian billionaires.
I clearly remember that during the campaign, estimates of Trump’s wealth varied greatly. And that was a favorite topic of business journals. Trump himself was claiming a net worth of $11 billion at one point. But the financial journals speculated his wealth might have been closer to $1.6 billion. More recent estimates have been around the $3 billion range. There was also speculation that Trump refused to show his taxes because it may have shown his actual income to be embarrassingly low. Therefore, I stand by my point that few outside the Trump Organization really know its balance sheet.
Peter writes: “Interesting chart, Allan, on the richest presidents. But I question how accurately they can adjust for inflation. …”
All of this is nonsense fluff to hide the real issue. You don’t like Trump and will create spurious arguments to place him in a bad light. You do so because of your ideological aims not because any of this cr-p makes sense or advances any real argument. Enough already. If you have a complaint against the President make it with fact, not wishful thinking. Suffice it to say my comment on Washington “Washington our first President along with his wife might have been the richest or at least one of the richest in the nation with large land ownership.” was entirely correct and you were entirely wrong. If you wish to stray from the underlying political dispute don’t point to Madison when my comment had to do with Washington. You will only confuse yourself.
Because of Washington’s desire to recapture a slave that ran away you believe he was poor. A ridiculous bit of logic if one actually tries to think about the rationality of human beings. Rose Kennedy was very rich, but when she was alive and living in Palm Beach she was noted to go to the Valentino Boutique and fight for the best sale. Did that make her less rich? I’m not the richest guy in the world but have no wants. If I drop a quarter in the street I pick it up even though I don’t need it. You pay too much attention to left-wing stories and not enough on human nature. This makes you quick to accept theories that never worked in the past and don’t work today.
” It is known that most of the big American banks cut Trump off at one point. ”
That is malarky. Banks make money by investing in businesses. Therefore, they don’t simply cut off businesses. They merely invest in what is good for their bottom line and what spreads the risk. I think instead of ingesting all those left-wing ideas on wealth you ought to learn a bit about how financial institutions actually function. Then you wouldn’t accept the malarky that seems to fill the pages you write.
“Trump’s wealth varied greatly. ”
As I stated above you should invest more time learning about how financial institutions and the world functions. Of course, Trump’s wealth varies considerably. The price of his assets vary considerably and one doesn’t know the dollar amount until all the assets are converted to dollars.
The subject was emoluments something you have successfully strayed from. I hope, however, that in moving on to unrelated topics you learned a bit about how the world works so you can focus better on defining the President’s quality.
Trying to do direct comparisons of wealth using money – particularly inflation adjusted money is impossible and ludicrously stupid.
While wealth comparisons over time are difficult, the most effective means to do so is to compare assets and to compare the present value of those assets.
Washington owned an enormous amount of land – land that today is incredibly valuable, and even in its own time represented a significant portion of the wealth of the country.
BTW this problem doing comparisons with inflation adusted money is not merely a mess across 250 years, it is horrible even across a few decades.
One substantial problem is that inflation is not even close to uniform.
Further we have both inflation and deflation concurrently.
Deflation is the reduction of the cost (and usually value) of something over time.
It is cause primarily by rising standard of living. By producing more for less.
Deflation is inherent in a free market. It is inherent when standards of living rise.
Inflation conversely is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena.
It is merely the relationship of money to wealth. It has nothing to do with standard of living or actual value.
Inflation is the consequence of choices by government.
In 1983 I bought a high end Amana Refridgerator – wholesale.
I paid 1200. Today I can buy a far better one for $900.
So have we had inflation or deflation since 1983 ?
You can do this with all your assets.
You will ultimately find that nearly all cost less today in nominal dollars. That all cost less in real dollars.
Honestly I think the presidency of Trump is despite the exhortations of the left proving the opposite.
Trump has actually been pretty relentless is firing anyone who has actually tried to benefit off the common weal.
At the same time he has demonstrated – personally, and through his appointments, that private success can be a strong predictor of public success and competence.
And in fact the truly wealthy use there personal wealth to the benefit of the country.
DeVoss is jetting around the country in style near that of US One. But she is paying for her accommodations.
Trump might financially benefit from being president. Though that is far from certain.
He is not directing his energies to his own business ventures.
He is working for the nation, not for Trump.
This ties into something that Adam Smith noted 250 years ago.
The ability of humans to consume is limited – rich or poor.
Wealth beyond ones ability to consume and enjoy ultimately benefits others not yourself.
The wealth of the rich really serves the rest of us.
Trump will benefit greatly if the economy benefits because then the value of his assets will rise as will the assets of the common man, but in no way will that extra money affect his personal spending like it will affect the personal spending of the common man who will be able to spend more on himself. Whatever extra money Trump makes is invested in society and increases the wealth of society as a whole and sooner or later increases the revenue our government obtains from him. Wealth is a good thing as it permits the wealthy to take risks that none of us can take and thereby increase the wealth of the nation substantially. Many decades ago, if I remember correctly, Canada’s more wealthy group felt they couldn’t afford the risks entailed in many excellent investments because they were not wealthy enough. That didn’t help Canada’s underlying economy or its citizens.
It would seem that the Left wants the rising economic tide to lift only their boats and simply torpedo Trump’s in the process.
Olly, if we look at the places where leftist ideas predominate we see poverty and great wealth. Those in the elite have great wealth and no compunction about the fact there is such a divide between the rich and the poor. The idea behind leftism is to benefit those in power utilizing those that are dumb enough not to understand human nature.
“Olly, if we look at the places where leftist ideas predominate we see poverty and great wealth”
Actually wrong.
The distribution pattern of wealth is nearly fixed regardless of politics.
What varies is the total wealth produced.
One of the things Chinese leaders noted after Mao’s death when they went out to the west to learn was that the elite Chinese leaders were little better off in the west than ordinary westerners.
They were only wealthy elites inside their own sphere.
This is also true going to the past. The kings of centuries ago were less well off than the US poor today.
Finally there is a small error in my remarks above. And that is that money and wealth are NOT the same thing.
Actual wealth is distributed more evenly.
Trump is a billionaire – he has tens of millions of times more money than the average person.
He likely has little more than 100 times more actual wealth.
As I neted before – Smith found two centuries ago that wealth plateaus rapidly and after that you are just increasingly rich, and the benefits of that increasing money go to others not you.
Allan writes: “Olly, if we look at the places where leftist ideas predominate we see poverty and great wealth”
John responds: “Actually wrong.”
John, just because my response doesn’t confine itself in the manner you want your talking points addressed doesn’t make anything I say wrong. Since you have already expounded your theory to Olly I can see what you are referring to and why you are wrong.
Actually, my comment leads to a relative similarity to the numbers you profess exist. The elitists in a leftist regime constitute only a small fraction of the population. Those left destitute are in much greater numbers. What is actually happening is that the pot that is divided is much smaller so the respective portions are much smaller as well. (Take note of your own comment about the Chinese that I read after writing my own.)
Your last paragraph as it relates to some former statements becomes a bit confused, but I think I was able to adequately work out its meaning.
Allan;
My point which is FACTUAL, not talking point,
is that disparities in wealth are universal.
What is true of left wing countries is that standard of living is MUCH lower.
Therefore the 99% who have about 50% of the total wealth in EVERY scheme,
live in absolute poverty in left regimes, and the elites live in relative poverty compared to the rest of us.
With small variations 1% of people have 50% of wealth nearly everywhere – past, present, left, right.
“My point which is FACTUAL, not talking point, is that disparities in wealth are universal.”
I didn’t dispute that point though I did comment on it. Our disagreement has to do with your wrongful interpretations of alternate ways of saying related things that have little to do with the point you are reiterating here.
Below is the point along with your problematic response.
—
Allan wrote: ““Olly, if we look at the places where leftist ideas predominate we see poverty and great wealth”
John replied: “Actually wrong.”
The fact is I was correct as explained in the text following your comment.
You are correct ONLY in the sense that you can also say
“in the places where we find leftists in control, we also find gravity.”
We find gravity everywhere.
We find approximately the same distribution of wealth everywhere.
All that differst is the absolute level of wealth.
“we see poverty and great wealth”
You nitpick a bit too much without any point to the nitpicking and leave yourself vulnerable to outlier realities.
Some of the Gulf nations are examples of poverty and great wealth. Russia today has both poverty and great wealth. One would have to write a book to properly define what they are saying so that is why in general conversation one picks a middle of the road idea to express a greater idea rather than an extreme.
For someone upset about “nit picking” – you are beating the crap out of a straw man.
I have said again and again that the shape of the wealth distribution curve is close to throughout the world.
It is a hyperbola.
And your response is “hyperbola here, hyperbola there, your wrong !” ?
John writes: “For someone upset about “nit picking” – you are beating the crap out of a straw man. I have said again and again that the shape of the wealth distribution curve is close to throughout the world. It is a hyperbola. And your response is “hyperbola here, hyperbola there, your wrong !” ?”
Firstly, the quotation you provided only exists in your mind. You made it up. The first time you described wealth distribution as a hyperbola I told you I liked that explanation. Though I agreed with the earlier statements in part I felt your use of numbers was a bit much, however, I agreed with the concept. You seem to want the total agreement on every iota of your philosophy. Though we have significant agreement it cannot be exact agreement. I accept that, but you don’t seem to.
Not a quote – a paraphrase.
The quotation marks were to clarify that I was paraphrasing you, not stating my own views.
We do not have a punctuation mark for paraphrases, but I beleive that quotation marks are frequently used.
If not I appologize, I was not quoting you.
Of course I want total agreement.
Unlike say Linda, I understand that, I am not getting total agreement.
I would prefer to let this issue go. I think I have made clear my key point.
Leftism’s defining characteristic is not the shape of the distribtuion, but the abysmally low baseline.
“We do not have a punctuation mark for paraphrases, but I believe that quotation marks are frequently used.”
I EXTRA clearly clarify what I am saying or use ‘ ‘ rather than ” “
To try again.
Leftism does NOT effect the distribution of the pot – much.
It effects the size of the pot, shrinking it or keeping it small.
Maybe I should have said “requires clarification” rather than wrong – except that you suggested that the elites in leftist societies are extremely well off – they are not. They are just relatively well off compared to the 99%, but that is true everywhere.
“Maybe I should have said “requires clarification” ”
Maybe you should have said that you didn’t understand and then explain what it was that you didn’t understand. My use of the term ‘extreme wealth’ was both real and relative. Do you realize how much Castro had when he died? It was extreme both in my terms and in relative terms where it was even more extreme. I can mention many more names to fill this type of list, but I already mentioned earlier that the pot is generally smaller.
I would focus less on the adjectives and more on the content skipping the exercise of trying to figure out the best contrarian interpretation of what is being said.
That would require saying something that was not true.
I understood you.
And I think you understood me.
The fact – which what you state does not overtly contradict, but does imply otherwise, is that disparties in the distribution of wealth are universal – not unique to left governments.
The fundimental issue is not the distribution, it is the lower than normal levels of total wealth.
That many not contradict your statement, but the POINT of your statement is wrong.
” ***That*** would require saying something ***that*** was not true.”
John, who can reasonably figure out with a degree of certainty what the “Thats” are?
Relative wealth is dependent on resources, data collection, definitions and all sorts of things that do not appear adequately incorporated into your stated “data”.
“but the POINT of your statement is wrong.”
You say that, but I wonder how many people can figure out what you are saying and why?
“Relative wealth is dependent on resources, data collection, definitions and all sorts of things that do not appear adequately incorporated into your stated “data”.”
There are only two critical factors to rising standards of living. One is economic freedom.
You can read Julian Simon for the other.
https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Resource-Julian-Lincoln-Simon/dp/0691003815
Allan writes: ““Relative wealth is dependent on resources, data collection, definitions and all sorts of things that do not appear adequately incorporated into your stated “data”.”
John writes: “There are only two critical factors to rising standards of living. One is economic freedom.”
Relative wealth and rising standards of living are two different concepts. Why are you responding to a different concept? Do you think you are the only one to recognize the importance of economic freedom?
““Relative wealth is dependent on resources, data collection, definitions and all sorts of things that do not appear adequately incorporated into your stated “data”.”
Explain further. I am listening.
Additionally, why should I care about relative wealth as a measure when standard of living is readily available ?
What information does relative wealth provide that SOL does not ?
Further if SOL(A) =x(A)*y(A) and SOL(B)=x(b)*y(b) and RW(b-a) = SOL(B)-SOL(A).
How do terms p,q,r, suddenly appear in RW(b-a).
Isn’t RW(b-a) – x(B)*y(B)-x(A)*y(A) ?
“Explain further. I am listening.”
Countries rich in mineral wealth creates a higher level of wealth.
Data collection, who is a citizen? I think the UAE is loaded with oil wealth and its couple of hundred thousand citizens have loads of money. The rest of the people that live there live under near slave conditions 2 million+. (I have to make sure I am dealing with fact rather than fiction and if true the data is likely decades old. EVen my time is ultimately limited)
Definitions: What you call something affects the final numbers.
There are counter examples – Norway as an example,
But vast natural resources do not translate into great national wealth – africa has some of the most abundant natural resources in the world.
While Hong Kong and singapore have nearly the highest standard of living in the world and almost no natural resources.
I would again recommend Julian Simon, there are only two things which correlate to rising standard of living reliably – the first is freedom, the second is the size of the population.
Essentially Malthus was entirely wrong (he did subsequently get it).
Progress is the consequence of a very small portion of the population – back to that hyperbola.
The more total people you have the larger the number in the leg of the hyperbola.
Further increasing numbers multiple growth rather than add to it.
To be clear population is not as strong a factor as freedom. China had a huge population under Mao.
It also had a political system that destroyed its most productive people.
It is also not just about the numbers of really smart productive people.
It is also about the increasing size of the demand pool.
Economics is about allocating scarce resources.
It works badly when resources are too abundant.
The more people the greater the need, the larger the demand the more likely it is to be profitable to meet it.
China today has about 5 times the population of the US at about 1/3 the standard of living.
That means it has a total potential demand at current standard of living greater than the US.
That means the worlds market for most everything has increased over the past 40 years by the equivalent of adding one whole US market to demand.
That means Drug companies have dramatically increased they market.
That is keeping all other things equal.
But they are not equal. If a drug company can sell the same drug it makes for the US market at 1/2 the US price it still may make DOUBLE the profits in china.
That means more drugs will be developed,
Further the much less restrictive drug laws in China mean that drugs that serve smaller populations are profitable.
Castro Net Worth at Death – 900M.
That does not even get him half way to the entry level requirement of the Forbes 400.
Cuba’s GDP is 1/200 of the US. There are easily 200 people in the US wealthier than Castro.
The POINT still is that the wealth distribution curve is very nearly the same – regardless of form of government or even period in history.
Distribution is fixed – it is a function of the relative makeup of human populations.
The distribution of talents, and abilities and intelligence, NOT the government or economic system.
It is a reflection of the fact that we are NOT equal.
The wealth distribution curve is always going to be a hyperbola.
I do not doubt you can come up with more names.
I am not saying that leftist countries do not produce people with extreme wealth.
ALL forms of government do.
Nor am I interested in debating whether Castro was twice or half as wealthy as would be predicted.
The curve is asymptotic. The high end is near vertical in ALL economies.
“Castro Net Worth at Death – 900M.”
We really don’t know Castro’s net worth despite the estimates that are made. How can we? In my discussion, I included relative worth. However, if you prefer you can substitute Putin or the Saudi rulers.
As I have said I don’t disagree with your gross curve of wealth distribution. It almost appears as if you are arguing for argument sake. I think your description of the curve being asymptotic is a better description than you provided earlier and permits a greater change in your numbers while still describing what appears to be true.
“Castro Net Worth at Death – 900M.”
After posting my reply to you I saw one of my earlier comments that included relative wealth as part of my discussion. I am sure with a search you can find more references to demonstrate that I was talking in both real and relative terms.
“My use of the term ‘extreme wealth’ was both real and relative.”
I am trying to avoid a non-sensical debate with you as I doubt we really disagree.
If I said your point is that “leftist states are characterized by extremes of wealth and poverty” – would you say that is correct ? If so I do not disagree with that.
My point is that ALL states are characterized by a hyperbolic distribution of wealth.
That the difference between ideologies is not the shape of the distribution but the median level.
Is that something you can agree with ?
I do not think on the whole there is a significant difference in the asymptopes at the extremes.
But it is not a debate I am interested in.
When the upper extreme is near vertical trying to argue that leftist states are more or less near vertical than others is not interesting to me.
If that is important to you – I will leave it alone.
https://jonathanturley.org/2018/03/29/federal-court-permits-emoluments-challenge-to-move-forward/?replytocom=1721400#respond
“I am trying to avoid a non-sensical debate with you as I doubt we really disagree.”
John, on the basic points, we agree. There are at least three separate areas where our agreement might fade. None of these areas have to do with the hyperbolic distribution of wealth. In that case, we agreed once you defined your thought in that more appropriate way.
Area 1: DoI vs Constitution. To me, the Constitution is a contract and an anchor that anchors the nation so the nation doesn’t split apart or head in too many directions. It doesn’t meet the underlying idea of the DoI but, in my mind, is supposed to work in that direction. Instead, due to stupidity and beliefs different than those that believe in the unalienable rights the Constitution has been pulled in the wrong direction causing the nation be in danger. I never agreed with the implied slavery in the Constitution but would have signed the document because otherwise, we would never have been able to exist.
Area 2: DoI as law. It isn’t. The Constitution is the law. The DoI is a vision and a good one at that. If at the time one believed DoI to be law, they could never have signed the Constitution with its implied permission of slavery.
Area 3: Time and pragmatism. It appears to me that you may evaluate policy based upon your DoI goals. That is good, but there is a time frame. Those goals will never be completely reached so compromise is necessary to move forward. You might look at time as infinite, but I look at time using the perspective of the human lifespan. I plan for the future, but I don’t give up taking care of the present.
Perfection is the enemy of good.
>
The “contract” is:
In return for surrendering my right to initiate force against others to “government”, government will secure all my other rights against the use of force by government and others.
That is pretty close to the text of the declaration.
The constitution is “and here is how it is proposed that is accomplished”.
The DoI is important – when the constitution is unclear.
Using my building analogy,
The specs might cover the use of dynamite to excavate foundations – but the blueprints tell you where the foundations go, and the original contract tells you WHY you are blasting foundations.
In actual law, the blue prints and specifications are incorporated as part of the contract.
But they are not the WHOLE contract.
Let’s not hedge our arguments. The Constitution is the primary source of the law and all else is secondary to it.
Area 2.
I think we actually agree. But RARELY the constitution does not clearly answer a question.
You must have some fallback.
Some alternatives are:
Natural law – that is Gorsuch.
The will of the majority – that is Scalia and Bork – and most of the left, except for the left it is not the rare fallback, but the starting point.
the most narrow possible interpretation
the most broad possibile interpretation
The DoI.
…
Again it is not a common problem.
Start with the plain text, as it would be understood by those who ratified it.
ONLY if that does not result in a clear answer, go elsewhere.
I would note ratified is not wrote. The meaning of the constitution is not what the founders intended, it is what those who ratified it expected. Things like the federalist papers are important – more so than the debates in the constitutional convention, because that is what the people were told it meant.
I beleive this is also a difference between many modern “originalists” and those of the 80’s.
“I think we actually agree. But RARELY the constitution does not clearly answer a
You must have some fallback.”
We probably agree but all these discussions trying to place to DoI on the same plane as the Constitution in matters of law is a foolish exercise. Secondarily what a founder is reported to have said or other documents along with the DoI may be used as secondary evidence to help interpret the Constitution. That is it. Despite how we feel there is no special place for the DoI in this matter.
The DoI is on a significantly higher plane in terms of legal theory or legal philosophy.
The Constitution has little of either.
The Constitution itself is NOT actually law either.
It is the framework for the government.
It is the enumerate powers of government.
“The DoI is on a significantly higher plane in terms of legal theory or legal philosophy.
The Constitution has little of either.”
Despite all the lofty ideas, philosophy and desires the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Despite all the lofty ideas, philosophy and desires the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
That position is what kept slavery alive. If the law violates those lofty principles identified in the DoI, it’s that the law that is unjust. That’s why the constitution does not supersede the DoI.
“That position is what kept slavery alive.”
Olly, that is right. The choice was the nation or slavery. I don’t know how I would have acted at the time. Mindsets were different then and slavery existed throughout the world.
Though slavery should be considered unjust by all, that still doesn’t change the facts on the ground. The Constitution was signed and became the law of the land. If you wished to work outside of the Constitution based on your morals and the DoI you were functioning outside the law. A terrible position to be placed in, but the law none the less.
We all face moral crises at one time or another in our lives. Christians and others may take note that Jesus died on the cross.
The Constitution was signed and became the law of the land. If you wished to work outside of the Constitution based on your morals and the DoI you were functioning outside the law. A terrible position to be placed in, but the law none the less.
We all face moral crises at one time or another in our lives. Christians and others may take note that Jesus died on the cross.
Allen, I cannot tell if you are arguing in support of the progressive position or are simply identifying today’s reality of where the progressives have taken this country. I certainly hope it is the latter. I’ve posted the following from Bastiat before on this blog but it certainly bears repeating given your most recent comments:
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.
“Allen, I cannot tell if you are arguing in support of the progressive position or are simply identifying today’s reality”
Olly, I am most definitely not in support of progressives or the left. By nature, some might say I am a libertarian type, live and let live but that is not a tenable position in the society we live in. I prefer no denotation of political ideology though I would prefer the use of classical liberal over libertarian. I believe in the Constitution, not because it was written without flaws, rather because it exists as an anchor. I’ll accept the good with the bad and try to remove the bad. I believe in this country and believe it to be the greatest superpower that ever existed. I believe its underlying culture is good and compassionate though the true leftists are not compassionate at all and are extremely dangerous.
I would rather take my talking points from Bastiat, Hayek, and Friedman than from those that hate or even dislike them.
” disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate” Slavery was legal but totally illegitimate. Slavery though not mentioned by name was accepted by the Constitution.
One has their ideology. However, one lives in a world where that ideology may not be realized by others. We each have our own limits. Nathan Hale had his: “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.”
[An incidental point not to be confused with the ongoing discussions]
Olly, I just wanted to add a point. If I am correct you served in the Navy (I salute you) and when you took your oath, what was the oath all about? Wasn’t it about defending the Constitution?
and when you took your oath, what was the oath all about? Wasn’t it about defending the Constitution?
Thanks Allen. That’s correct. I swore the oath at my enlistment and then during my reenlistments. I’ve never been relieved of that oath. What’s interesting to note is I had never read the constitution. I didn’t read it until about 8 years after I had retired in 2007. That’s when I began studying what it meant and why we had it.
I’ve appreciated the passionate dialog you and John have had on this subject, but I must say what I’m reading is precisely why this country is in trouble. Many people far smarter than I have had similar debates about our constitution and it’s always seems to be about original intent and ways around it. Yes it’s identified as the Supreme Law of the Land, but whether it’s actual law would seem to be an argument for someone trying to find a way around it. It’s more about how we as the people transfer power to the government and as best as possible, what that power is. That power is viewed by progressives similar to someone starting an engine; put it in gear, step on the pedal and go hit the open highway. Conservatives on the other hand view it almost opposite of that. It’s design is rooted in one immutable fact: our sinful nature. We must have government and so the framer’s grudgingly devised a way to transfer as little power as necessary to make that government function. It was designed to limit further transfer of power, not enable it. The one critical component that rarely enters into this debate is the broader why does our government exist in the first place? If you look for the answer in the constitution, then your asking for trouble. The answer is found in the DoI. But no one seems to have studied that. Rights? Self-evident truths? Seriously, how relevant could that document be if we still had slavery? 3/5ths clause? The framer’s didn’t even believe slaves were equal. Whenever I read those arguments I know immediately the writer has very little understanding of the DoI and more importantly the events throughout history that lead to it.
There are a lot of countries that have a constitution. It’s not a magical document. Ours is very good but it hasn’t endured just because of its design. To explain that I’ll leave it to what I have found to be the best explanation of why this constitutional republic thrives while others fail. Abraham Lincoln’s Fragment on the Constitution and the Union.
All this is not the result of accident. It has a philosophical cause. Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of “Liberty to all” — the principle that clears the path for all — gives hope to all — and, by consequence, enterprize, and industry to all.
The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.
The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, “fitly spoken” which has proved an “apple of gold” to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple — not the apple for the picture.
So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken.
That we may so act, we must study, and understand the points of danger.
As you say, Olly, The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land from which we can create other laws. It isn’t a libertarian roadmap. It isn’t perfect. Yes, others try to find an easy way around the Constitution because the alternatives are an amendment or a violent revolution. They don’t support the legal government or the political culture of this nation.
“ why does our government exist in the first place?”
Your answer is the DoI which isn’t untrue, but IMO not the basic reason. Our forefathers believed in the Declaration and when the government didn’t respond to what they considered their basic needs they revolted and became a free entity divided into 13 states. The Articles of Confederation were not felt sufficient enough for the 13 states to survive.
That was the basic reason for the Constitution, survival. Those writing, lobbying and approving of the Constitution understood what the different forms of government meant and their problems so they attempted to create a Constitution that would spell out exactly what the government was supposed to do, IMO based on some form of classical liberal ideas. The Constitution attempted to secure the nation from outside force and secure the people from the excessive force of government. The only problem was a lack of agreement so everyone signing the document had to compromise.
The powers outside of those designated were left to the states and their Constitutions. N.J. because of a fate in history ended up writing a Constitution that permitted women to vote, the only one to do so. Other states created a state religion at the taxpayer’s expense. Some states permitted slavery. All of this occurred despite, not because of, the Declaration of Independence. However, all the states were linked together by the Constitution and respect for the Constitution kept the nation together.
The constitution creates what is probably the most classical liberal govenrment that has ever been.
But it does not create a classical liberal utopian government.
It was intended to create a government that would work.
It was intended to do so by people who beleived that the only form of government that would work was classical liberalism.
It is not a roadmap per se, but it is a reflection of their values. Though in that respect the DoI is superior.
Regardless, I do not think we are at odds at all about how the Constitution should be understood when its meaning is clear – nor how to find clear meaning.
Any disagreement is in the narrow case that reading the constitution as those who wrote it meant it, does not yeild a clear answer.
“But it does not create a classical liberal utopian government.”
I leave utopian government to Thomas More and fiction.
“It is not a roadmap per se, but it is a reflection of their values.”
Values are ephemeral and differ greatly so for a nation to survive what it needs is a roadmap like the Constitution which sets an anchor to let everyone know what the underlying law of the land is. If the people of the nation respect the Consitution the nation will survive. If they don’t the nation will fall and be replaced.
Think in terms of time and entropy.
That was the basic reason for the Constitution, survival.
There are millions of aborted babies that would disagree with you.
Travel to any country with a constitution; will you feel the same security of rights as you do here? Hell, even in this country we have forces that will twist the constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean and our next to last line of defense is the courts. Our constitution and Bill of Rights are worthless if no one is willing to defend them. What makes any defense legitimate? Hint: Not the constitution. Not the President and not the Legislatures. Not even the people themselves, if they remain ignorant of the true purpose of any government. As we’ve seen, they can create laws, the President can sign them, the President can issue EO’s, the courts can strike down opposition to bad laws. So no, none of that matters if people put their faith in our constitution, the political class or the people. The first 3 self-evident truths in the DoI is what makes our constitution legitimate. And when we fail; when we finally have had enough of the long train of abuse by our government, then our last line of defense is the 4th.
Allan: “That was the basic reason for the Constitution, survival.”
Olly: “There are millions of aborted babies that would disagree with you.”
Olly the 13 states were worried about the survival of their independence. Though a terrible problem that we debate today, abortion wasn’t a significant issue at the time. Slavery was and that led to compromises in the Constitution.
“The first 3 self-evident truths in the DoI is what makes our constitution legitimate.”
A Constitution (in a constitutional republic) is legitimate until the constitutional republic ceases to exist. A constitution is supposed to work as the law of a country, state, etc. Even despotic countries can have constitutions and in those countries, there may be no right to life, liberty, and property.
I believe our founders tried to pass a constitution that would as closely as possible in any compromise meet the words of the DoI. You, John and I fight to meet those words as closely as possible where our differences involve the means, not the ends. Nothing can guarantee success in such an adventure. In fact, the survival of our nation over the short term was questionable. How we act is based upon who we are and when we listen to some of the voices on this blog we can easily see that we are a nation divided and that not everyone believes in individual liberty.
I always think about the question and the response attributed to Ben Franklin:
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
How does one keep A Republic with ideals that were never even realized?
Olly the 13 states were worried about the survival of their independence.
Of course they were, but why? They didn’t have to seek it. They could have remained a colony of Great Britain, couldn’t they?
Though a terrible problem that we debate today, abortion wasn’t a significant issue at the time.
That one statement is very telling of how you understand the DoI and its timeless validity. The DoI was not written just for an 18th century colony to justify its independence. They were making the case for humanity; for all time and all people. It was bigger than slavery or abortion or any of the issues (shiny objects) that people get easily distracted by.
You refer to the constitution as the anchor. If that were true, then why in the world would it be designed to be dragged around? If you want to use the anchor metaphor then the constitution would be our ship and the DoI would be the anchor.
Even despotic countries can have constitutions and in those countries, there may be no right to life, liberty, and property.
That is why I made that point. The law is nothing if it isn’t anchored to something greater than the designs of our human nature. The entire purpose for government is to secure our natural right to life, liberty and property. The law is not the centerpiece of this republic, it is those enduring principles identified in the DoI.
“They could have remained a colony of Great Britain, couldn’t they?”
Olly, they initially wanted that, but they felt they were denied the rights they deserved. Recall, “no taxation without representation”. Would those rights have been as lofty as the ones you are talking about? I don’t think so. Right there you have the setup for a compromise; Tory’s, revolutionists and all those people in between.
” very telling of how you understand the DoI… They were making the case for humanity”
I’ll accept that as a starting point. How did the DoI tell them how they were supposed to rule themselves? How did it state what type of government if any they were going to create? They did create the Articles of Confederation and that didn’t seem to be working out.
” If you want to use the anchor metaphor then the constitution would be our ship and the DoI would be the anchor”
I don’t object to your use of that metaphor, but how does it work as an anchor with the existence of slavery?
All the dictators of the world have anchored their totalitarian government as a common good for all people. Words are one thing, effectuating those words are another. We have no or little difference in stating our goals. The problem is how to enact them.
“The entire purpose for government is to secure our natural right to life, liberty and property.”
The purpose of government is *control*.
How did the DoI tell them how they were supposed to rule themselves? How did it state what type of government if any they were going to create?
I’m glad you asked. If you’ve ever been part of a strategic planning process you would recognize the DoI for what it is, a Vision for the nation. Visions are always written in the present tense reflecting what our nation will be IF in the future. There is always a gap between the current state and the desired future state. The Mission then is to create a system that will positively manage that gap by identifying specific goals, strategies and objectives leading towards that vision. That system is our Constitution. It provides the framework necessary to achieve the objectives, which are intended to achieve the strategies, which are intended to achieve the strategic goals. If we accomplish the goals, we reach the vision.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
This is the guiding statement that instructed the framers on what form of government (system) should be established. The states were concerned with creating a too-powerful form of government so they created the Articles of Confederation. They discovered this form was too weak to make it effective. And of course we get the constitution.
I don’t object to your use of that metaphor, but how does it work as an anchor with the existence of slavery?
Ending the practice of slavery was always a strategic goal. This was only going to be accomplished if they became an independent nation and could install a form of government that would pursue that end. Had they not compromised on the front end (3/5th’s clause), they would never have had the support for ratification. The entire effort to secure independence from Great Britain would have failed.
The purpose of government is *control*
That may be how it currently functions but it is not its purpose. Government exists because we are less secure in our natural rights living in the state of nature. It only exists to do what we cannot do individually. If we could all exist with equal security of rights, then no government would be necessary. Borders wouldn’t be necessary. But that’s not how human nature works.
We may just have to agree to disagree.
Olly, you seem to use the word vision and mission interchangeably so I will use the phrase mission statement.
I think the Constitution is more than a mission statement, though the Preamble of the constitution might suit that definition but has no bearing on the law. I definitely believe the Declaration of Independence represented a state of mind of those revolutionaries that founded our nation but afterward The Articles of Confederation were created and failed. I think that led to a new chapter when the requisite states signed onto the Constitution.
“If you’ve ever been part of a strategic planning process”
Just to let you know, I have been involved in quite a few strategic planning processes including creating mission statements. In the end what actually counts are what is between the four corners of the contracts.
I have no problem with the ideas behind the Declaration of Independence, but I am not under the illusion that we ever followed what was set out in that Declaration.
“Ending the practice of slavery was always a strategic goal. ”
By whom, certainly not by those that pushed for slavery and signed the Constitution. I agree and that has always been my point that we compromised.
Allan: “The purpose of government is *control”
Olly: “That may be how it currently functions but it is not its purpose.”
Every government across the globe exists to “control” and that is its purpose. Without that purpose, there is no need for government.
“We may just have to agree to disagree.”
Aside from the last paragraph, I am not sure what we have a substantial disagreement on.
I think we have all said what we have to say regarding this issue – and we are not all that far apart.
I disagree with Allan – the constitution is not only not the supreme law of the land, it is not even law.
It is a set of rules for what federal (and to a lessor extent state) law can and can not be.
It is not the actual law itself. It is Meta Law.
“I disagree with Allan – the constitution is not only not the supreme law of the land, it is not even law.
If it is not the law, what is it?
Why is it argued in a Court of Law?
Why is the subject matter called Constitutional Law?
Aren’t all laws sets of rules?
Call it what you want. It will remain the law.
I already address that – it is meta law. It is the rules for GOVERNMENT,
Law is the rules for individuals. The rules govenrment makes.
If you must call the constitution “law” then it is the law the people impose on their govenrment, as opposed to statutes and regulations which are USUALLY the law govenrment imposes on the people.
But even that is weak – because mostly the constitution says what government CAN do – it specifices enumerated powers of government.
Not what government can’t do – which is evertything it is not permitted to do.
“I already address that – it is meta law. It is the rules for GOVERNMENT,”
That is right, and it provides the government with specific abilities to create new law and forbids it from creating laws that breach the Constitution. That is why we still have free speech. To prove the Constitution is not the law (I quote just one comment of several: “I disagree with Allan – the constitution … is not even law.”) what you have done is provide a new category as if a change in name suddenly makes an incorrect argument correct.
I have not created any new category.
Law is the rules of conduct for people enforced by an authority.
The constitution is the rules that authority must conform to – with an ambiguous enforcement mechanism.
Have it your way, but when Constitutional issues get litigated they get litigated in a court of law. I will let the courts know that if Constitutional issues exist they should choose another word for the word “law”.
Court of law is a narrow term often used without meaning. There are other types of courts – such as equity courts.
But, litigation of the type we are discussing, Constitutional Law (note the name), is argued in a court of law. That makes things much more specific than the generalities you produce to argue your case.
You keep fixating on labels – not even actually formal labels,
Since you insist on a semantic debate
Websters
court of law: a court that hears cases and decides them on the basis of statutes or the common law
the constitution is not statute and appeals courts do not hear cases.
Absolutely many people commonly refer to all courts as courts of law.
So much so that the term is like Xerox – it means something different from the meaning of the words.
Or put differently the “law” part of court of law, is about as meaningfull as “xerox” is when refering to a copy. Maybe there was an actual Xerox involved, but not likely.
Regardless, this is a pointlessly stupid argument.
You keep accusing me of getting picayune.
Under English common law and in some states a “court of law” was a court which heard only lawsuits in which damages were sought,
That distinction has dissolved and every court (with the exception of federal bankruptcy courts) is a court of law.
That means every court is CALLED a court of law. It does nto mean that everything that a “court of law” addresses is “law”.
“You keep accusing me of getting picayune.”
You are. The constitution is and acts as the ultimate source of law in the legal system of the United States. Laws cannot conflict with Constitutional Law.
“Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. – Marbury v. Madison John Marshall
The constitution is and acts as the ultimate source of law in the legal system of the United States. Laws cannot conflict with Constitutional Law.
If that were true, we wouldn’t need the Supreme Court. And when a majority in this country elect legislators to pass laws that infringe the right to life, liberty and property of the minority and the supreme court upholds those laws, then what good is constitutional law? What supports the whole thing? Just shrug our shoulders? Where does the minority look to for the authority to oppose tyranny? The next election cycle?
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it.
“If that were true, we wouldn’t need the Supreme Court. ”
Olly, we do need the Supreme Court, to handle laws that conflict with the Constitution or create issues that conflict with one another.
You and I are both frustrated with a Constitution that doesn’t protect the individual or that expands government without an amendment to the Constitution. Think of what Ben Franklin said, “A Republic if you can keep it”. In the end, the nation will fall as we know it if the people don’t respect and support the Constitution along with the ideas behind it.
“The constitution is and acts as the ultimate source of law in the legal system of the United States. Laws cannot conflict with Constitutional”
All True. A spring may be the source of a river – it is not a river.
“All True. A spring may be the source of a river – it is not a river.”
The Constitution is a big river if one wishes to follow the analogy and the springs you talk about in argument don’t constitute the law.
Federal law alone is something like 150,000 pages today.
If that is the mississippi, the constitution is a spring, not a river.
But this analogy is weak because the constitution is the rules for govenrment, The law is the rules for man.
“I am trying to avoid a non-sensical debate with you as I doubt we really disagree.”
John, on the basic points, we agree. There are at least three separate areas where our agreement might fade. None of these areas have to do with the hyperbolic distribution of wealth. In that case, we agreed once you defined your thought in that more appropriate way.
Area 1: DoI vs Constitution. To me, the Constitution is a contract and an anchor that anchors the nation so the nation doesn’t split apart or head in too many directions. It doesn’t meet the underlying idea of the DoI but, in my mind, is supposed to work in that direction. Instead, due to stupidity and beliefs different than those that believe in the unalienable rights the Constitution has been pulled in the wrong direction causing the nation be in danger. I never agreed with the implied slavery in the Constitution but would have signed the document because otherwise, we would never have been able to exist.
Area 2: DoI as law. It isn’t. The Constitution is the law. The DoI is a vision and a good one at that. If at the time one believed DoI to be law, they could never have signed the Constitution with its implied permission of slavery.
Area 3: Time and pragmatism. It appears to me that you may evaluate policy based upon your DoI goals. That is good, but there is a time frame. Those goals will never be completely reached so compromise is necessary to move forward. You might look at time as infinite, but I look at time using the perspective of the human lifespan. I plan for the future, but I don’t give up taking care of the present.
Perfection is the enemy of good.
Area 3.
I do not think we are in disagreement.
I am not in a position with the power to make a decision.
In the position I am in – I am arguing the principle.
Compromise without the power to effectuate it is stupid and destructive.
Put me in congress, and I am going to have to decide between the perfect and the good, and the good it winning.
But there is zero reason to compromise in an argument that is about principles.
“In the position I am in – I am arguing the principle. … But there is zero reason to compromise in an argument that is about principles.”
There are two arguments. 1. Principle 2. How far one goes in compromise. Standing up and arguing principle is easy and meaningless. You get nowhere and the only one that listens to you is another that agrees. Stating principle with a willingness to compromise (for a worthwhile gain) while learning to juggle principles is a necessity.
Let me give an example. I am not for the federal government’s involvement in healthcare. It should never have occurred. The state level is a different matter. However, if I had to compromise to minimize the federal government’s involvement yet provide help for those in need I might agree with a subsidy as long as the subsidy is necessary and has the least impact on the free marketplace of healthcare.
You did not seem to grasp the distinction I was making.
Compromise only matters, when you actually have the power to impliment whatever you are discussing.
“Compromise only matters, when you actually have the power to impliment whatever you are discussing.”
Compromise is an art. Everyone has some degree of power whether they know it or not. Using that power correctly is the art of negotiation.
And it only matters where there is an actual negotiation
With respect to your example:
You want to compromise – fine in the real world there is going to be compromise.
But if you want to argue that ANY form of government involvement will be NET beneficial.
That is just crap.
There is NO necescary subsidy, and there is ALWAYS an impact in constrained choices.
Punish actual harms when they occur after the fact if necescary – quite often it is NOT necescary the market punishes them quite effectively on its own.
Someone else here has been recomending Bastiat – I would suggest reading him – though I can not beleive you have not already.
Regardless of what the first order – seen, hopefully beneficial effects are, the 2nd and on order effects, will be more difficult to find – usually, but far larger.
Further Healthcare should be the poster boy for Government F’ups.
In the 20’s medical care was cheap. If someone got sick – the cost of care was NOT the big deal, it was the last wages.
First we got corporate health insurance as a result of FDR;s wage constraints,
then we got increasing restrictions and subsidies and other garbage in the 60’s and onward,
And now we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world.
Healthcare is one of very few portions of the economy that has increased in real cost, no matter how you measure it. Education is one of the others.
But we know this need not be so – because those portions of healthcare that are lightly regulated and unsubsidized – prices have gone down.
“But if you want to argue that ANY form of government involvement will be NET beneficial.
That is just crap.”
That is not the argument.
“There is NO necescary subsidy, and there is ALWAYS an impact in constrained choices.”
The idea is to expand the positive impacts while reducing the negative impacts.
In this case, we were talking about socialized medicine. If 99% of the country wanted Obamacare and you could convince them on an alternate program of using only necessary subsidies that have the least impact on the free marketplace then your apparent choice would be to walk away and live under Obamacare. In my eyes that is a bad choice. I would choose the subsidies and live to fight another day.
You live in a populated nation that doesn’t think like you. The vast majority of people will never be thinking libertarians that follow the libertarian dream. Therefore, instead of having some influence on the direction of the country the lack of ability to compromise leads to NO influence.
Don’t compare 1920’s healthcare to that of 2018. It is a foolish comparison.
“That is not the argument.”
That is correct – the burden of proving that government action – particularly the interference in the rights of others is justified and beneficial rests with those arguing FOR interference.
With respect to “argument” I referred you to Bastiat, who does a compelling job of obliterating such nonsense.
I would separately refer you to coase’s law.
Or the extensive and publicly available work on government spending multiplies of the 4th most cited economist in the world – Robert Barro – the gist of which is that the positive impact of government spending on average is .25 to .35 for each $1 removed from the economy. The highest multiplier is .8 – for war material spending during a war.
Or there is just real world experience – can you name a single example where any government program of any kind has had a benefit in excess of its cost ?
This is practically guaranteed – government does not produce, it acts as a a middle man.
SOMETIMES middle men add value – though that is nearly always temporary as the markets constantly strive to reduce intermediaries.
Inherently the distribution of anything through government is less efficient and more costly than through the market.
Ir you could read Hayek. The left makes a big deal that Hayek was not “opposed” to social safetynet programs. But one must read him carefully – he still very clearly states that the redistribution of wealth and benefits through government will ALWAYS be less efficient that a free market. It will lower standard of living.
More Clearly the truth that Hayek is stating is that you can choose to use government as a tool to help the less fortunate – and you may succeed, but in doing so you will make ALL of us on net poorer.
Charity is a moral obligation of individuals – not government.
One reason for that is that it is a limitless obligation.
If we are obligated to feed the poor in this country – what of other countries ?
As wealthy as the US is confiscating the entirety of our wealth and distributing it evenly throughout the world, will have negligable impact – beyond impoverishing us.
We have a duty to share with others the blessings we have received.
But that is an obligation that can only be addressed individually.
Doing so collectively requires theft. It requires not merely some elites taking wealth from me and giving it to others, but it deprives me of my right to give that wealth to the needy of MY choice.
I care more about impoverished children in asia, that mildly disabled people in the US as an example.
“the burden of proving that government action – particularly the interference in the rights of others is justified and beneficial rests with those arguing FOR interference.”
I agree, but that agreement is without meaning unless the legislators and the voting public also agrees.
“Ir you could read Hayek. The left makes a big deal that Hayek was not “opposed” to social safetynet programs. But one must read him carefully – he still very clearly states that the redistribution of wealth and benefits through government will ALWAYS be less efficient that a free market. It will lower standard of living.”
Yes, but read him carefully when he was talking about Britain and the government being rich enough to offer help regarding health. I don’t recall the page number. However, in my prior statements, I was paraphrasing Hayek when I said that when doing so one should choose a way that has the least negative effects on the marketplace.
Obviously if you choose to do something stupid you should try to do so in the least stupid way possible.
Hayek’s argument regarding “safetynets” was that economists can tell us that these are inefficient, that the decision to proceed is economically poor. But many criteria go into making a decision and we can and do make poor economic decisions for other reasons that are good.
Hayek is absolutely correct – but still wrong about safety nets.
There is a compelling moral (not just economic) argument against them.
Government charity does not work – even by non-economic criteria – and it destroys alternatives that do work.
“Hayek is absolutely correct – but still wrong about safety nets.”
I find the above statement very interesting. Hayek is absolutely (totally, perfectly entirely) correct, but he is wrong.
[I limited his comment to what he said about healthcare.]
Do you find a contradiction in:
You are free to do X, but it will not work ?
Can;t both things be true ?
“Can;t both things be true ?”
You can try and twist words and context all you want which is what you have been doing on many issues. If Hayek’s statement on a limited specific issue according to you was ***absolutely*** correct then all parts of his statement on that limited specific issue are correct. No one forced you to be hyperbolic and use the word “absolutely”. You wanted to lean on Hayek’s point on this one issue when it was convenient, but as soon as Hayek was inconvenient the word absolutely changes to something completely different.
Do you find a contradiction in: You are absolutely free to do X, but it absolutely will not work ? Can’t both things be true ?
The addition of absolutely changes the meaning of the two propositions, but it doesn’t change the fact that they do not LOGICALLY contradict. It is possible that in application they might contradict.
That either you are NOT absolutely free to do X or that it might unders some circumstances work.
But that is a completely different argument.
You have claimed there is a self evident contradiction.
There is not.
That is fine. Hayek dedicated only a few sentences to what was under discussion, maybe only one. In the future, I will recognize that when you use the word “absolutely” it means maybe or maybe not or both of the preceding or non of the preceding. That will make things less complicated.
You are seeing a contradiction where one does not exist.
The error is one of logic – presuming two things are always mutually exclusive when they are not.
It has nothing to do with the word “absolutely”
You can be absolutely free to do something,
and it can still be absolutely stupid.
“You are seeing a contradiction where one does not exist.”
Not in the limited framework of Hayek’s own words. Admit it, your use of the word “absolutely” was wrong. You can argue to eternity, but all you are arguing is erroneous semantics, not substance.
I repeat my claim: “In the future, I will recognize that when you use the word “absolutely” it means maybe or maybe not or both of the preceding or non of the preceding. That will make things less complicated.”
“Not in the limited framework of Hayek’s own words. Admit it, your use of the word “absolutely” was wrong. You can argue to eternity, but all you are arguing is erroneous semantics, not substance.”
red herring fallacy.
the addition or substraction of “absolutely” does not change the fact that there is no contradiction between the two statements.
The two statements represent overlapping sets. Adding the word absolutely changes the members of each set, but it does not alter the fact that they are overlapping.
To have an actual contradiction, the sets must not overlap.
You are falsely assuming that the sets do not overlap.
This is pretty basic Logic 201.
“red herring fallacy.”
John, you have red herrings all throughout your arguments. What is the red herring here? That the word “absolutely” can mean not absolutely? OK, have it any way you want. If you say something is black I will leave open the possibility that what we are talking about is actually white, or maybe green, red, yellow or blue.
“This is pretty basic Logic 201”
Based on what you have been saying tomorrow it might not be Logic 201, but maybe music 101 or dance. Who knows. If absolutely can be converted to “maybe or maybe not or both of the preceding or non of the preceding then I guess anything is possible.
Come on Allan – you know what a Red Herring is.
I demonstrated that the addition of the word “absolutely” did not create a conflict between two paraphrased statements of Hayek That you claimed conflicted.
Any you go off on absolutely. It was your word – not mine. You could substitute many adverbs and though they would change the meaning of the statements they would not cause them to conflict when they do not inherently.
That is my only point regarding absolutely. I am not arguing that “absolutely” does or does not belong in the sentences.
Only that adding it or removing it does not alter the fact that the statements do not INHERENTLY conflict.
As I noted they are overlapping sets.
There MIGHT exist some conforming A statement and some conforming B statement that MIGHT conflict – I suspect there does not.
But the inverse – there exists no conforming A statement that does not conflict with all conforming B statements is false.
My Paraphase of two of Hayek’s statements are NOT in inherenet conflict. They are not, whether you add absolutely or not.
I have not made an argument about the meaning of absolutely.
“Come on Allan – you know what a Red Herring is.”
Of course, I do John. Instead of using the statement by Hayek you chose to use a contrived artificial statement to prove what you said was right when you could have used Hayek’s real statement that proves you wrong.
Next, you make a claim that is untrue. “Any you go off on absolutely. It was your word – not mine.” But a search reveals that isn’t true as well. I quote your use of the word “absolutely” that is at issue.
“Hayek is absolutely correct – but still wrong ”
I will stop commenting on the rest of your reply as there is enough here for you to think about and to revise.
“Instead of using the statement by Hayek you chose to use a contrived artificial statement to prove what you said was right when you could have used Hayek’s real statement that proves you wrong.”
Again one of the big criticism’s of those like Linda is that the presume to read other peoples minds.
I paraphrased Hayek. I think reasonably accurately. I think more accurately as I originally wrote without “absolutely”. But I do not care to argue that.
Further the issue of whether I misrepresented Hayek – is both false and another red herring.
Your claim, which is logically incorrect is that the two statements conflicted.
It is irrelevant to that claim who made the statements.
You raised no complaint about the accuracy of the paraphrase until now.
After 2 days of debating this – now it has become apparent to you that I had evil intentions in constructing my paraphrase. That I deliberately did not use Hayek’s exact words – not because I did not wish to spend an hour wading through TRTS to find a precise and concise expression of each of the two assertions – as I recall they are within pa paragraph of each other, so that atleast would help.
I love Hayek, but reading him gives me a headache. His writing is dense. I can not read more than 3-5 pages at a time. TRTS is a small book. but it took incredibly long to read. I have read only two things more Dense – Nozick, which is even harder to read and understand, and Nozick’s language is more technical and less accessible, and Coase – except Coase manages the same density while being completely readable and accessible – no headaches.
Regardless are you now saying I inaccurately restated Hayek ?
The two assertions are quite simple, and very Hayekian
1). We are free to do as we please – we are even free to do economically stupid things such as construct a broad deep social safetynet.
2). When we do something economically stupid for non-economic reasons the results will be poorer economic performance.
I think that is pretty accurate – do you have a problem with my representation of that as reflecting Hayek ?
With respect to myself, Hayek is mostly correct. Though he makes one important error. Freedom is an individual right, not a collective one. There is not “freedom” for the majority, or the elite to choose and impose that choice on the rest of us by force. We can act for all in voluntary groups – but only when those part of the group are free to leave.
BTW Both Locke and Nozick resolved THAT aspect of government and majority rule by concluding that government had to be voluntary. That you had to have the right to opt out.
But that is not how government exists.
Regardless, voluntary or not, Government may not use force against others without justification.
The punishment of crimes is as an example a justified use of force.
Constructing a social safetynet is not – and that is why Hayek is Wrong.
You or I can freely choose to construct the most safetney we wish, we can persuade others to join us.
We can do so stupidly and at cost to ourselves and even those we endeavor to help – so long as all is voluntary. It is called charity. It is not within the legitimate scope of government.
“Again one of the big criticism’s of those like Linda is that the presume to read other peoples minds.”
John, no one presumed to read your mind. I copied your exact words. However, you did presume to read my mind earlier when you put a supposed argument of mine in quotes so it looked like I said it. You provided an excuse and apologized but with this most recent claim, I decided to remind you of it.
I quoted your statement that included the word “absolutely” that you are now again trying to explain away. Your statement spoke and continues to speak for itself.
You have some other claims, but I am not interested in your protestations or even trying to prove you wrong. We agree too much on the meaning of the Declaration of Independence and the value of classical liberal ideas. The Constitution is the law of the land. That is good enough for me.
Allan,
I have been charitable and tried to step back on this partly because I am not looking for conflict with you and partly because I made a few small errors in my arguments.
That said, those errors DO NOT alter the arguments I made or the logic errors you made.
Continuing this is not getting us anywhere.
But you seem intent on doing so.
AGAIN – there is no conflict between the my paraphrase of two statements of Hayek.
There is no conflict – with “absolutely” there is no conflict without it.
There is no conflict between the two statements even if the paraphrase is fraudulent – which it is not.
I have ceded a few mistakes and walked away.
But if you insist on continuing this – we can go back to your more serious errors which are at the root of this thread.
I have already made my point, so I do not think anything is served by that.
As to paraphrasing you – if the paraphrase was inaccurate – clarify. I do not think it is, but you are free to correct me if I am wrong.
Regardless, there is no great error in paraphrasing you correctly, and none of consequence given that you are free to correct error.
Linda not only misattributes thoughts to others, but does not ever let go.
She claims to know more than each of us, what our own words, thoughts and intentions are.
I am not going to apologize for paraphrasing what real people actually said.
Particularly when I will be happy to defer to their actual words.
Dave and John, where you assume I made a logical error you are wrong. I recognize a certain logic of yours, but it didn’t pertain to the conversation so I didn’t bother with your logic. I tried to stick to the context of the discussion. You have a split personality. 😀 I am kidding and referring only to your name and your alias.
It is and was obvious my intent is not to continue this as stated in the most recent emails. In fact, I declined to respond to several emails of yours after that email because the time to end this discussion is well past due.
Anytime you find an error in my comments I will be glad to be corrected and even say thank you. That is how I learn Paraphrasing is fine as long as there are no quotation marks around it and the paraphrase is accurate along with being in context.
Enjoy.
There is no such thing as “a certain logic”.
Either something is logically correct, or it is not.
You asserted the two statements I attributed as a paraphrase of Hayek conflicted.
My subsequent statement that the “absolutely” do not – is overly broad.
Regardless they still do not conflict.
The context was your assertion that there was a conflict.
that claim was a choice of yours not mine.
You then made the context about “absolutely”. I misunderstood your subsequent comments to be that inserting absolutely into the paraphrase was required, and would make the conflict evident.
That too is false, but given that it is based on my misunderstanding of your remarks it is also tangential.
The two statements do not conflict – whether they accurately paraphase Hayek or not.
Separately, I think they do accurately paraphrase Hayek, but that is not an argument I wish to continue.
Hayek wrote what he wrote, Further debate will not change that.
I am less interested in your error in logic than the actual truth of the statements.
Hayek did make an error – but that error was the common error of the left, or presuming that what is permissible individually is justifiable collectively.
As individuals we are free to make choices that do not infringe on the rights of others, but do not work.
Liberty means nothing if it does not mean the right to make bad choices – ones that do not work.
The same is true of VOLUNTARY collective action.
If Bernie Sanders wishes to form a commune in Vermont and ALL the members agree to a Single Payer system – or those who do not agree are free to leave – that may be stupid, but liberty requires permitting that.
Government is not a system of voluntary collective action.
We may not do through government the same things we can as individuals or through voluntary free association.
But my “conflict” with you is that we absolutely may make bad choices that do not infringe on the rights of others, but do not work.
There is no conflict in saying you are free to do something stupid.
Hayek’s statements were intended to make a related point.
That value is subjective and therefore we may make choices that have bad economic outcomes.
There is actually a subtle error in that – because value is subjective we can not (easily) have a bad economic outcome – so long as our choices reflect our values – which as long as it is individuals acting for themselves is a tautology.
If as an example you shoot Heroin, overdoes and die. That is NOT a bad economic outcome – so long as you valued that next shot of heroin more than the risk to your life. It is (or may be)however a bad outcome from the perspective of those other than you.
“There is no such thing as “a certain logic”.”
Your writing has proved that “certain logic” exists. Let us Say that J.ust B.ecause we don’t want to go through all this again.🤓
Now you are misquoting my quoting you.
“a certain logic” and “certain logic” are not the same thing.
And no I am not going to agree to something that is wrong to avoid further argument.
I agree that we disagree. I agree that we are miscommunicating.
Look close at the capitalized letters that don’t belong while thinking what Keynes would Say about the logic of Jean-Baptiste.
“Hayek is absolutely correct – but still wrong ”
Wow!, That is the basis of your claim that there is a conflict ?
I should have said “Hayek is correct – but still wrong”.
There is a very subtle difference between the two.
Regardless, Hayek’s statements do not conflict – which was YOUR claim, and I am pretty sure prior to my addition of Absolutely.
It is possible that Hayek is absolutely correct – that would require one set to fully contain the other, rather than for them merely to overlap. I think that may be true, but I am not going to the trouble to explore it.
Because among other reasons we are miles from anything meaningful.
I said Logic 201, because my recollection of logic 101, is it does not go into existential logic.
There exists ….. for all ….. for some ….
Logic 101 generally deals with the rules of inference and non-existential propositions.
Your still not getting it – the lack of a conflict is because the sets overlap.
Changing an adverb changes the sets, but it does not change the fact that they overlap.
So long as they overlap there is not inherent conflict
I would also note “inherent”
I am sure there is Some A and Some B where there is a conflict.
But in the simplistic way you expressed it
For All A and for All B A and B are in conflict.
That is false.
For most A and Most B A and B are not in conflict.
There is even the strong possibility that
For All A, A are part of the set B and therefore not in conflict – though all B are not necescarily in A.
“Your still not getting it ”
John, review your quote on Hayek. Then review your contrived proof when you could have used the real thing, Hayek’s own words.
“I repeat my claim: “In the future, I will recognize that when you use the word “absolutely” it means maybe or maybe not or both of the preceding or non of the preceding. That will make things less complicated.””
Your fixation with absolutely remains a red herring.
I added it – at your request, merely to note that its inclusion did not change the fact that the sets still overlap and there is no contradiction.
Just to be clear the use of “absolutely” changes the argument. The sentences do not mean the same with or without it. The sets for each premise change. But the fact that they overlap does not change and therefore there are not nescescarily contradictory.
Allan: ““I repeat my claim: “In the future, I will recognize that when you use the word “absolutely” it means maybe or maybe not or both of the preceding or non of the preceding. That will make things less complicated.”
John: “Your fixation with absolutely remains a red herring.”
I think I just answered this, but things keep disappearing. I’ll make this answer shorter. We should strike the word “absolutely” from the dictionary since like Humpty Dumpty it can mean anything you want it to mean.
If that will end this – fine.
I have no problem with adding absolutely to the list of words that are meaningless – though “fair” is at the top of my list.
You know whenever you here “fair” that what follows will be self serving and likely false.
“You know whenever you here “fair” that what follows will be self serving and likely false.”
…And that is what you are doing right now. You are bringing in a new word “fair” to deflect from your poor use of the word “absolutely”.
“If that will end this – fine.”
Good. I consider your use of word games ended.
I am presuming that your determination that I used it first is correct.
In a prior post I ceded that “Hayek is “absolutely” correct” is not the same as “Hayek is correct” and the latter is true and the former might not be.
That said, my “Hayek is ‘absolutely’ correct” misstatement was in response to your remark that the statements are in conflict.
They are not, and the inclusion of “absolutely” does not change that.
Nor does whether I have paraphrased Hayek – whether well or badly, quoted him directly, or made the whole thing up.
My mistake does not alter that the digression regarding “absolutely” is a red herring, as is musings about paraphrasing.
“The idea is to expand the positive impacts while reducing the negative impacts.”
Which is beyond the ability of government to do – Bastiat – “the seen and unseen”.
Allan writes: ““The idea is to expand the positive impacts while reducing the negative impacts.”
John responds: Which is beyond the ability of government to do – Bastiat – “the seen and unseen”.
It is not beyond the ability of government to do rather the private sector much more frequently can do it better.
“It is not beyond the ability of government to do rather the private sector much more frequently can do it better.”
Interesting response.
Alot hinges on what “better” means.
China’s standard of living was actually lower at Mao’s death than in 1900.
The USSR had improved relative to Tsarist Russia – but not by much and was falling further behind the west all the time – While Nobel economists like Paul Samuels claimed that any day they would surpass us.
The Standard of living in Europe has improved since its post WWII recovery – but not as much as nations with less burdensome governments.
“In this case, we were talking about socialized medicine. If 99% of the country wanted Obamacare and you could convince them on an alternate program of using only necessary subsidies that have the least impact on the free marketplace then your apparent choice would be to walk away and live under Obamacare. In my eyes that is a bad choice. I would choose the subsidies and live to fight another day.”
We bump into things like this all the time.
Acting through government was deliberately made incredibly difficult.
Unfortunately we have spent 250 years tearing down those barriers.
Obamacare has NEVER had more than plurality support, and it has never had that very long.
Conversely healthcare reform has had strong support.
There is an enormous difference between support of a concept – even public support of a bad concept, and actual public support of something specific.
Many benefits in PPACA – have majority support – but that support is NOT the same people as the next benefit to the right or left.
As is common with legislation – we must cobble together a collection of popular and sometimes unpopular items into a whole that has some hope of working. We do this despite the fact that much of the support we have is NOT for the entire package – but for only one part. We also do this unders circumstances where even the majority support for some part – presums zero actual cost.
Even support of the most popular individual PPACA provisions completely tanks – when voters are told they will have to pay a small amount for that provision.
Popularity is merely an excercise in stupidity – as nearly everyone want good stuff for free (or if someone else is paying for it).
I was commenting on compromise, not trying to start a discussion on Obamacare. If compromise is beyond your ability then you can’t live in a pluralistic environment.
You used PPACA as an example. I responded to it.
Further as I have said repeatedly – compromise is a tool for those circumstances where you actually have the power to accomplish something.
There is ZERO reason to compromise in a debate where the outcome will change nothing as no participant has any power.
Finally, Compromise is a tool, it has no intrinsic moral value in and of itself.
Whether compromise has merit depends entirely on the merit of those things accomplished.
“There is ZERO reason to compromise in a debate…”
That means you are only talking about dogma and not the real world we live in.
“That means you are only talking about dogma and not the real world we live in.”
The opposite.
It means that I am only willing to settle for half a loaf – when actual loaves are involved.
Debates on the internet are not in the real world – they are in the world of ideas.
They are tied to the real world – by our ideas about the real world.
But in a debate there is no reason to cede a point – or a half point for a real world gain – because there is no real world gain. There is only the loss of a principle.
Policy can start at the ground level and might be more appealing than the theoretical ideology behind the policy. We both know our respective ideologies that lead to certain policies. What we don’t know is the ways in which we are willing to try to move policy in a direction that might move things towards our ideology. If a person of a known persuasion cannot demonstrate a way forward (like Linda) then there is no reason to listen to that person. Her ideology is known but we don’t know how she would be willing to move in any direction. Therefore discussion with that type is wasted. Her statements are wasted as well for they are nothing more than a repetition of talking points representing her ideology. Those in agreement to an ideology might listen, but that is preaching to the choir.
The way forward – pragmatically, theoretically, and ideology is greater freedom.
We know that works. The strongest correlation that exists to rising standard of living is rising freedom.
When there is an actual real world conflict over which I have the power to act, I will “compromise” for the greatest increase in individual liberty that I can get.
“The way forward – pragmatically, theoretically, and ideology is greater freedom.”
If that were so, in the case of the founding of this nation, I don’t think the Constitution would have been accepted. Look at the arguments against it. We work in that direction, but there are many opposing forces that impede that aim. The push towards freedom is a never-ending struggle where compromise eventually becomes a factor.
“If that were so, in the case of the founding of this nation”
It IS SO. AGAIN the strongest factor correlating to rising standards of living is the rate of improvement in freedom.
BTW the second strongest factor correlating to rising standard of living is an inverse correlation with the size of government.
Our founders did not have the data we have. They had Adam Smith – who was first published in 1776 – when we were kind of busy.
But they were likely familar with this – if no other way, through their own experiences.
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
Adam Smith.
Allan: “If that were so, in the case of the founding of this nation”
John: It IS SO. AGAIN the strongest factor correlating to rising standards of living is the rate of improvement in freedom.”
We are not disagreeing on a cause for rising standards of living. If you didn’t cut my sentence off it would be clear what I said, Under those conditions ” I don’t think the Constitution would have been accepted. ” You are trying to make a theoretical case for the libertarian persuasion. Our founding fathers may have thought a good deal about classical liberalism but they didn’t form this nation based on pure libertarian values. If they did we wouldn’t have had slaves so all your talk is just that. Reality punches you in the face at which time the preaching has to stop and reality has to set in.
Our founders didn’t need any more data to know slavery was wrong, so your following argument lacks any value whatsoever. Our founders mixed classical liberalism with a lot of other things to come up with a compromise and that compromise was the law of the land, the Constitution.
Again logic, the predicate to a false implication has no truth value at all.
Your premis is false. what it implies if it were true is meaningless.
“Your premis is false. what it implies if it were true is meaningless.”
My premise was true and your use of the word “absolutely” was wrong since “absolutely doesn’t mean maybe, maybe not, both of the preceding and none of the preceding.
You ought to go out for a drink with Humpty Dumpty so that both of you can discuss how words mean precisely what each of you wants them to mean.
The failure of your claim has NOTHING to do with the meaning of absolutely.
The error was made BEFORE the word absolutely appeared in the argument.
The only reason for addressing “absolutely” which YOU introduced was to note that it did not change the error.
“”The only reason for addressing “absolutely” which YOU introduced ”
Nope, the word “absolutely” was introduced in context to the discussion in this statement of yours.
“Hayek is absolutely correct – but still wrong”
This is not about the precise meaning of absolutely or any other word.
As I have noted, you can substitute nearly any adverb, possibly any, and definitely none, and not have a conflict between the two paraphrases of Hayek’s statements.
Your argument is that
“you can do X, and X will not work” inherently conflict.
It is NOT true that those two statements conflict for all X.
If is possible they do not conflict for any X.
This is not about the meaning of words.
Nor is it about whether the first or the second proposition are true (or false), it is just about your claim that they can not both be true.
I do not understand why this is so difficult for you. You are a smart person and as I said before, this is early intermediate logic.
I would not expect Linda to grasp it. But I would not expect Linda to grasp Modus Ponens – the first rule of formal logic.
“You are trying to make a theoretical case for the libertarian persuasion”
No most of what I am addressing with you is simple logic issues.
The correlation between growth and standard of living – is not a theoretical case.
That said what the founders knew of it, is at best Smith plus personal observation.
I think it is reasonable to assume that the scottish enlightenment had a very strong effect on the founders.
I do not think it is reasonable to say a large portion were strongly familiar with Smith’s WON.
I think it is reasonable to assume that many of them were VAGUELY aware of the other works that it builds on.
“No most of what I am addressing with you is simple logic issues”
You are promoting your view of libertarianism and your logic pertains only to items you created. You are not meeting the discussion head on.
I have already said: “We are not disagreeing on a cause for rising standards of living.” and you keep arguing the issue, “The correlation between growth and standard of living – is not a theoretical case.”
Your argument seems to have flown the coop and the cage is being filled with all sorts of things that don’t pertain.
“You are promoting your view of libertarianism and your logic pertains only to items you created. You are not meeting the discussion head on.”
It is clear we are not communicating.
First – you made the assertion that I am trying to force our founders into conforming to some specific view of libertarianism.
As I noted the DoI is incredibly Lockean – that is natural rights libertarianism with shallow exploration of its economic consequences.
Essentially you can get from Locke to Smith to Friedman and Coase using facts and logic.
But out founders did not – and I did not claim otherwise. With respect to rights – particularly non-economic rights they were mostly lockean natural rights classical liberals.
They were influenced by Smith, but not nearly as much as by Locke.
Further northerners were fairly merchanitilist even through the 19th century,
and Southerners were physiocrats – even throught the 19th century – even though from Locke facts and logic you can destroy both, and even though by 100 years after Smith it is nuts for anyone to be either a physiocrat or a mechatilist. But then we still have Mercantilists today.
Is there some part of this analysis you disagree with ?
Is it perfect ? Nope, our founders (nor any large group of people) do not fit conveniently into any package.
But to the extent that our founders can be labeled with a single label – it would be early lockean scottish enlightenment. Some – particularly Franklin were more up-to-date than others.
Further I suspect our founders were more familiar with the scottish enlightenment than their european peers – albeit delayed by the time it took in the 18th century for ideas to cross the atlantic.
But our founders would have been more influenced – because in many ways they were properly situated to be influenced. They were far more prone to buy an ideology rooted in individual accomplishment, than their hereditary affluent european peers.
Regardless, It took a long time for Smith to influence them, but they were steeped in Locke and natural rights.
“It is clear we are not communicating.”
True.
“First – you made the assertion that I am trying to force our founders into conforming to some specific view of libertarianism.”
Not True.
“As I noted the DoI is incredibly Lockean – that is natural rights libertarianism with shallow exploration of its economic consequences.”
True, but not in the context of the discussion that the Constitution represents the law of the land.
The history that follows is of interest, and adds to the communication problem but is not pertinent to your disagreement with the fact that the Constitution represents the law of the land.
As I would expect you grasp JBSay is a pseudonym. My first name is Dave.
Dave: “First – you made the assertion that I am trying to force our founders into conforming to some specific view of libertarianism.”
Allan: Not True.
You have asserted that I am trying to force something into some particular view of libertarianism.
What am I trying to force ?
Confirmation bias is a huge danger for absolutely every. There is strong evidence it is far worse the more of a bubble you live in. But you can live in a bubble of your own mind.
My views, my perspective my ideology are all the results of decades of hard work, revisions all the evidence of being as close to able to look at things objectively as possible.
But confirmation bias is always a problem. And always something one must look out for in ones self.
We have a different perspective on the constitution and law.
I think that difference reflects a fundamental philosophical difference.
But it has only small real world consequences.
I am a systemitizer – that is the most common attribute of libertarians.
I am always trying to bring everything together – looking for the grand unified theory of everything.
Like Einstein I do not beleive “god plays dice with the universe”.
The constitution is NOT foundational. It is incredibly important,
I start with freedom – free-will, as the fundimental human attribute. The debate over free will splits psychology, sociology and philosophy. Though nearly all religion rests on it.
Morality rests on free will, and law rests on that.
The constitution is the rules for government, it attempted to define the scope of law.
Aside from what can be infered from that scope, and from the inclusion – particularly in the bill of a rights of a collection of enumerated rights, the constitution does NOT provide a clear philosophy of law.
Even such simple things as the fact that law rests on logic, and logic is a critical tool in law.
Yet, there is no formal understanding that law is constrained by logic, and on occaison the law diverges from logic, and when it does – in courts the law trumps logic, and that is pure idiocy.
It leaves law unanchored, foundationless. BTW logic is not sufficient a foundation for law, but it is a requisite part of the foundations of law.
My point is that neither law nor the constitution are foundational.
Of significant importance – yes, to be rigidly adhered to – yes, But NOT because of their inherent authority, but because failure leaves us unmoored, adrift. Chaotic in a very bad way.
But it is not foundational – and that is an important part of why there is a difficult process to change it.
If the constitution was truly the embodiment of a philosophy that actually worked – it would never need changed. We would be able to find the right answers from that philosophy.
I do not think classical liberaism is the philosophy that meets that requirement – for unchanging law.
But it is the closest thing we have found.
At the same time just because I have found a far better system that Linda, I must still avoid making the mistake Linda does constantly and refusing to continue the hard work of looking for and resolving contradiction or constantly incorporating all new information, and being open to change when that new information posses a problem.
“As I would expect you grasp JBSay is a pseudonym. My first name is Dave.”
Of course, I knew that on your first post dhlii. It was very obvious.
The grand unifier of the country is the Constitution which is the law of the land. Unfortunately, it has been terribly misused. Our sympathies lie in the Declaration of Independence.
Nothing more at this time need be said on the subject.
However, let me add a comment from Dennis Prager:
“In a nutshell, [Americanism’s values] are what I call the American Trinity: ‘In God we trust,’ ‘Liberty’ and ‘E Pluribus Unum.’ The left has successfully made war on all three — substituting secularism for God and religion in as much of American life as possible; substituting equality (of result) for liberty; and multiculturalism is the opposite of ‘E Pluribus Unum.'”
“Of course, I knew that on your first post dhlii. It was very obvious.”
I would not have expected less of you. But I doubt more than a handful of others here know who J. B. Say was or what Say’s law is.
Your Prager quote is good.
I think we have thoroughly covered our disagreement on the constitution and declaration.
I think our differences have significant philosophical implications, but few practical ones.
One other point – one that those on the left constantly run afoul of and you are dancing at the foot of.
Facts are facts, reality is. Or as Rand/Aristotle would say A is A.
In the event that the facts fit well with on ideology or another – that does not make the facts into ideology.
The facts remain facts. But they also become an argument for the merit of whatever ideology they support.
Labeling something as “libertarian” or fascist, or socialist or republican or progressive and then discarding it is basically the inverse of and appeal to authority.
Facts are not wrong because they support some specific ideology.
We get these arguments from the left all the time (and sometimes the right).
That is a conservative position, or talking point, or a republican one, or a partisan one, or that person in authority is republican and therefore they are wrong, or that is wrong because the Koch;s paid for it, or because anyone paid for it, or because the russians ….
Every one of those attributes are reasons why one MIGHT question a purported fact based on its source.
But not one falsifies the fact.
It is either testably true or not. If it is true, whether it is libertarian, or communist, or russian or … is irrelevant.
The truth is not falsified because Hitler speaks it.
“The correlation between growth and standard of living – is not a theoretical case.”
That is a statement of fact. That it also supports a particularly ideology does not alter that it is a fact.
But it does lend credibility to that ideology.
I am promoting an ideology – and I am supporting it with facts and logic.
There is not some special libertarian facts, nor a libertarian logic that is different from normal logic.
“Our founding fathers may have thought a good deal about classical liberalism but they didn’t form this nation based on pure libertarian values.”
I have not said otherwise. Though I would say that there is a great deal of complexity.
It is extremely reasonable to say that John Locke was a strong influence – if not a universal one.
The DoI is very close to cribbed from Locke.
Smith was too much later and therefore less of an influence. Information moved more slowly.
Further as politically libertarian as our founders might have been many were economically merchantilist – even into the 19th century. Further there was a strong north/south conflict – even in economics – the south being nearly the physiocrats that Smith destroyed.
Regardless the libertarian idea of politics and government was relatively mature to our founders,
Classical liberal economics was not as mature.
Oddly Smith got very nearly everything right, and even danced very close to somethings that did not become solid until more than a century later.
The laws of supply and demand, and the subjective theory of value are in Smith – if you want to find them, but they are not there clearly enough to identify him as the progenitor of those ideas.
I mean what does “all money is a matter of beleif” mean ?
With respect to Slavery – the original Sin of the US – the overwhelming majority of founders – including Slave Owners like Washington, Madison and Jefferson knew it was wrong and an abomination.
It was also an addiction they could not escape.
I do not think it is reasonable to say that our founders beleived in Slavery.
Just that enough were sinners unable to let go of their sin – and they knew it.
In fact had Jefferson spent more time at Montecello Slavery might have ended sooner.
He conducted some experiments that proved that you could move productively from slavery to a market based scheme with negro’s. But his experiments could not survive opposition from other plantations without his personal presence at Montecello to continue them.
Allan: “Our founding fathers may have thought a good deal about classical liberalism but they didn’t form this nation based on pure libertarian values.”
John: “I have not said otherwise”
Good. Perhaps you should have stopped there.
The rest of your statement seems to have nothing to do with our prior disagreements but is historical. I don’t have significant disagreements with any of it. I too wonder how Smith was so prescient.
Freud was brillaint and a century later.
He is rightly respected as the founder of psychology in much the same way Smith is with respect to economics.
But using physics as a modal – Freud is the Thompson model of the atom, and we have advanced to the Bohr model and beyond. Thompson was brilliant – but his model though useful was wrong.
I am unaware of anything Smith has been found wrong about. WON even proves a picture is worth 1000 words – as it would be half as large if Smith had used graphs which were the conception of a scottish enlightenment friend of his.
Subsequent economists have expanded, added, clarified, amplified gone places Smith did not get to.
But nothing they have evolved conflicts, and quite often you can find some economic principle finalized in the 20th century and read Smith and say – damn, he anticipated that. But it is only a sentence or two in WON and a book by some nobel prize winner centuries later.
“You live in a populated nation that doesn’t think like you. The vast majority of people will never be thinking libertarians that follow the libertarian dream. Therefore, instead of having some influence on the direction of the country the lack of ability to compromise leads to NO influence.”
That is less true than you argue.
Most people are not educated and informed libertarians.
Most people will “vote” for things that libertarians cringe at – so long as they have no personal cost.
But the instant that people must pay for what government gives them – they start behaving and voting rock solid libertarain – by super majorities.
Alot is made of the anger at republicans during the 2013 shutdown.
But the same polls that were saying Republicans were down double digits to democrats were also saying that 70% of us whole not vote to raise the debt ceiling – even if the country would default.
Getting people to vote for free ponies is easy.
But when people make choices and have to take actual responsibility for those choices super majorities make “libertarian” choices – even about government.
There is not a single aspect of the left agenda that has been acheived over the past 70 years that voters today – or at any prior time, would have approved of, had they accurately been informed of the cost.
Existing programs only maintain support – because bad as they are we have come to depend on them.
“But the instant that people must pay for what government gives them – they start behaving and voting rock solid libertarian”
In order to convince, you have to show and in order to show you have to compromise. Maybe you are considering using force to get to that point?
There is no moral prohibition to the use of force in resistance to the illegitimate use of force.
I have dealth with lots of left wing nuts who thought that they could somehow invert libertarianism into some moral equivalence with progressivism and pretend there was some hypocrisy.
There is not – barring another from using force against you illegitimately – by force if necescary is justified.
Initiating force without justification is not.
Put differently, once you accept free will, accept that you may not infringe on the freedom of another without justification – and the use of force is not easily justified,
You end up with government as libertarian – even if the majority “feel” otherwise.
This also ties to arguments that Richard Epstein has made that law (the use of force), must be normative – by which he means that no law without something close to 80% of people supporting it is legitimate.
Aside from the theoretical there are several practical reasons for this.
There is evidence that any law that will be strongly opposed by as little as 11% of the people will fail, one way or another – it will either piss people off too much if enforced or fail to be enforced except arbitrarily.
Laws against homosexuality ultimately failed – and homosexuals are only 3-5% of the population.
If you have 10 laws – each with 90% of people supporting them – but each having a different 10% of people opposing them – you have 100% of the people opposed to government.
Majority rule – democracy is a ludicrously stupid means of governing – it can only work in a completely voluntary arrangement – such as churches, and corporations.
Our government has more laws than we can count – more felonies even. We are well past being lawless.
Everything does nto grind to a halt because the mass of our laws are imposed rarely and arbitrarily and usually only against people that we mostly agree are bad. That is a lawless, and dangerous means to govern.
Anyway, returning to my point it is NOT improper or hypocritical to resist the unjustified use of force – even with force.
“In order to convince, you have to show and in order to show you have to compromise. ”
Nope, compromise is a tool. It is not even a value, much less a principle.
“Nope, compromise is a tool. It is not even a value, much less a principle.”
I guess that means the Constitution is of no value and that it shouldn’t exist. The Constitution was a compromise.
Standing in space – that is correct the constitution has no value.
As a tool that created a pretty good though imperfect government – it has value.
But that value comes from what it created.
That is my point. Our founders had reason to compromise. They had the power to convert that compromise into something real.
All of us are aware of the great compromise of the constitution – that created a country in return for tolerance of slavery in the south.
No one living today thinks that tolerating slavery was a good thing.
Some of us can even think the compromise itself was a bad thing and should not have happened.
But it did create this country. Compromise was a tool to accomplish that.
The value of the compromise rests in what was accomplished – not in the idea of compromise itself.
Whether the compromise was net worthwhile depends on your personal relative value of the creation of the country and ceding a few inches to the continues existance of slavery.
Regardless, it is the results that determine the value.
I guess some feel more comfortable in a safe space.
“But the instant that people must pay for what government gives them – they start behaving and voting rock solid libertarain”
In order to get to that point, you have to show them the benefits and to do that you have to compromise. The alternative is using force.
“In order to get to that point, you have to show them the benefits and to do that you have to compromise. The alternative is using force.”
Nope, the alternative is RESISTING the illegitimate use of force.
This should not be that difficult to understand.
You should be able to do a reductio ad absurdem on your argument easily.
If you wish to kill me – and you get 51/100 of people to agree – am I barred from resisting ?
If my use of force to prevent being kiiled morally the same as your efforts to kill me ?
All uses of force are not legitimate. But all force used in response to illegitimate for is.
“Nope, the alternative is RESISTING the illegitimate use of force.”
Excellent. I believe in resisting the illegitimate use of force but even there I have to compromise and choose my battles. I believe a good deal of our taxation is illegitimate. I assume you do too. Will you not be filing taxes or will you sort of compromise and say that is a battle not worth fighting at this time?
Again compromise is about real things, and where you have real power.
In a debate about the legitimacy of most taxation, where the debate will not have any real world impact – beyond maybe changing someones mind – no, I am not compromising.
On April 15th, when I pay my taxes I will be compromising all over the place.
“On April 15th, when I pay my taxes I will be compromising all over the place.”
I guess you don’t compromise your ideology in debate, but you sure do compromise that ideology when the rubber hits the road.
“I guess you don’t compromise your ideology in debate, but you sure do compromise that ideology when the rubber hits the road.”
Aside from a bit of snark that is accurate.
There is no reason for the former, it wakens any position you have in the latter.
In the real world – you do the best you can.
Allan: “I guess you don’t compromise your ideology in debate, but you sure do compromise that ideology when the rubber hits the road.”
John: Aside from a bit of snark that is accurate.”
It wasn’t meant as snark rather a fact to remove us from theory and place us in the real world where “you do the best you can” and that very frequently means compromise.
And again compromise is a tool. We do not use screw drivers to pound nails.
When the tool of compromise can be used to make a meaningful change, it is worth considering.
That is not in an argument, were weakening true principles in return for nothing is just stupid.
“And again compromise is a tool. We do not use screw drivers to pound nails.”
Yes and since not all members of society were like you they didn’t use libertarianism as the law of the nation. They used the Constitution which was a compromise. I know pure libertarians frequently have a hard time compromising, but the few pure libertarians that might have existed at the time didn’t have the power to create a Constitution in their image. Instead, they probably better liked what was written in the Declaration of Independence that provided important principles. When the rubber hit the road, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, pure libertarianism was forgotten for black people that were slaves.
You are off in an argument that does not involve me. But I guess you can keep arguing both side if you want.
“You are off in an argument that does not involve me. But I guess you can keep arguing both side if you want.”
John, I am not the one arguing against compromise or against the idea of the Constitution being the law of the land and a compromise.
I am not comparing 1920’s healthcare to that today.
In the 20’s John Rockfellor offered the equivalent of $1B today to any doctor that could cure his nephew of Scarlet fever – something that is easy today.
What is true is that in 1920 – the standard of living of people at that time was sufficient to allow even the poor to afford out of pocket the healthcare that was available to them.
In 2018 our standard of living is dramatically higher – we are able to afford much much more – without the help of government – in a free market.
I would further note that 95% of the benefits of modern healthcare are from 5% of the cost.
Global life expecances have skyrocketed – a few less developed nations have life expectance near equal to ours while lagging far behind in healthcare.
While there are many factors – high among them is that the cost of US heathcare has almost nothing to do with healthcare – or atleast those portions of it that deliver 95% of the benefits.
One extreme example – my mother died of colon cancer. During her last year she received a drug that cost $100,000 every time she was treated – and that was several times a year.
The drug was a miracle cancer drug. It absolutely totally completely stopped cancer dead in its tracks – for 6 months to a year.
Antibiotics prevent people from dying – they add decades to peoples lives not months.
“I am not comparing 1920’s healthcare to that today.”
You brought up 1920’s healthcare, not I.
“You brought up 1920’s healthcare, not I.”
I did, And I compared the system of paying for it. Not the healthcare itself.
AFTER you made a comparison, THEN I pointed out that 90-95% of life expectancy is rooted in the state of the art of health care in 1920 – or shortly their after. That the vast improvements – and their cost subsequently has small life expectance benefits at great cost.
I wish to note something else – as this conflict is close to something else.
Every time I respond to someone it is NOT a disagreement.
Sometimes you make a point and I choose to respond to make a DIFFERENT, but not contradictory point.
I believe in this particular instance I did that.
Further I did so somewhat clumsily.
There is little fundimental difference between:
Your wrong – all wealth distributions follow that pattern, and
Your right – all wealth distributions follow that pattern.
“Every time I respond to someone it is NOT a disagreement.”
When you respond it can be in agreement, disagreement or simply an addition. It can also be somewhere in between. Your writing style sometimes makes it very difficult to distinguish one from the other and probably leads to a lot of unnecessary back and forth or leads to off point discussion.
I beleive orwell said – say what you mean.
I beleive, I think, or similar modifiers are weak and redundant.
What you say is either fact or oppinion it does not need labeled as such.
Similar principles apply in other aspects.
“I beleive orwell said – say what you mean.”
That is a good rule, but along with that rule, one needs to make sure that the audience is listening and one is clear enough to let them know which remarks are criticism, praise, and addition. I do that when drawing up a contract, but the intent is that a future judge or the opponent’s attorney will know exactly what one means.
We are writing Blog comments – not contracts.
I have been published several times – I know how to write for an audience that might actually be listening.
Do you think Linda is listening ?
Written contracts BTW are for honest people, to clarify what they are committing to.
As an attorney advised me many years ago. If you do not trust the person you are preparing to contract with – then do not proceed. A bullet proof contract will not make up for the mess of dealing with someone who is not trustworthy.
These are again things those like Linda do not see. Exchanges of value for value are rooted in trust.
If more than a tiny portion of those engaged actually lie cheat or steal, the process will die.
The miracle of ecommerce sites is determining a way to exchange with someone you do not know, have not met and will never meet, who may be in a different country with different laws, with little possibility that you can force compliance, and still manage to establish trust – billions of times.
That is what the reputation systems are for.
Linda pretends that all commerce is corrupt, that businesses can not be trusted – while feeding a happy meal to her child.
It doesn’t matter whether you are writing to a blog or anything else. If are writing for an intended audience then the writing should be understood by that audience.
I am not writing to serve an audience.
I am writing for myself.
I do not as an example expect to ever persuade Linda of anything.
With regard to those like you – you are a smart person, hopefully you do not need me to make my arguments in some perfect form for you t consider them.
If I am wrong about that – I do not care.
” you do not need me to make my arguments in some perfect form for you t consider them.”
That is fine. I don’t require perfection or even good. You can direct how the comments are interpreted or leave it up to chance and live with replies that you might feel have misinterpreted what you have said.
“As an attorney advised me many years ago. If you do not trust the person you are preparing to contract with – then do not proceed.”
That is wise advice, but I have had to deal with snakes even though not wishing to. Most of the time their greed hinders their vision so to date I have escaped unharmed.
I do not think we actually disagree on the facts.
This is mostly a semantic disagreement, and mostly because my understanding of your remarks suggest that the elites in the left did as well or even better than those elsewhere.
No one does better in a left society.
“I do not think we actually disagree on the facts.
This is mostly a semantic disagreement, and mostly because my understanding of your remarks suggest that the elites in the left did as well or even better than those elsewhere.
No one does better in a left society.”
We don’t disagree on the basic facts. Nowhere did I ever make a statement that should be interpreted as “the elites in the left did as well or even better than those elsewhere.” even though that statement leaves too much room for dispute. That would be plain wrong.
My argument – and the fact is that wealth distributes along a hyperbola in all schemes.
That the baseline of the hyperbole and possibly the the abruptness of its curvature are what varies.
Nor have I claimed anything specific about the absolute wealth of the elites of leftists.
Only that wealth distributes on close to the same curve everywhere.
The distribution is a function of the attributes of humans not ideology.
The LEVEL is a function of ideology.
“Nor have I claimed anything specific about the absolute wealth of the elites of leftists.”
Then there should be no argument.
Though not using absolute $ amounts you did use % amounts. I neither deny nor confirm those numbers, but do agree with the curve mentioned earlier.
Allan,
I enjoy debate.
I would honestly rather debate with you than with Linda.
You are far better informed, and more challenging, and I think there is alot we could learn from each other in exchanges.
Our positions do not seem to be too distant from each other.
That inherently means any debate is going to be about small details.
Because I suspect there are few big things we disagree about.
You have been respectful in this latest conflict – something Linda and those on the left should observe and learn from.
Reasoned debate does not have to be an exchange of insults.
I have insulted Linda – but some assertions are just too totally stupid to be polite about.
Further Linda’s arguments are little more than chained insults and fallacies.
Regardless, I expect to respond to your posts in the future with different points of my own.
That is not always disagreement.
I also expect we will disagree on occasion.
That is not disrespect. Your arguments have impressed me.
And as noted before I would rather debate you than Linda.
I will learn more, and I hope you think you will too.
but to repeat – we are too close for our disagreements to be about significant points.
and any disagreement is not personal. You are smart, articulate and much more of a challenge than anyone on the left.
Once in a while I meet somebody on the left who can argue their side well, but they are incredibly rare.
“I would honestly rather debate with you than with Linda. You are far better informed, and more challenging”
Thank you for the nice comments. Your existence on this blog is a breath of fresh air. There are some very bright people here probably with less discretionary time than we have. There are also some very stupid people that might be able to write and read, but have a low-level intellectual ability. That is either due to a lack of brains or due to filling up their brains with cr-p.
There is a general rule – it is not merely true of humans but it is even true throughout nature and even in physics and astronomy.
It is that approx. 50% of anything is distributed to 99% of the population and 50% goes to 1%.
Further the rule follows a fractal pattern such that it is true of the 1% and the 0.01$ and ….
50% of the mass of all stars is in 1% of all stars.
This distribution is true of wealth. It is true regardless of the form of government. It is true of capitalism and of non-capitalist nations. It is true in the past and will be true in the future.
If our wealth increases 50% of that increase will go to 1% of the people.
There is going to be a 1% no matter what and they are going to possess 50% of the wealth – even in a communist society.
What is different is the value of 50%. In the past, in socialism the “wealthy” are pretty poor and the poor are impoverished.
Distributions are not accidents. They are driven by the underlying nature of the universe of humans.
More than 50% of all productivity increases are the result of capital not labor – but the labor population is large and the capitol population is small.
In any group of 100 people 1 person will be responsible for 50% of the ideas.
If you gather that 1% together – so that you only have the 1%, in that group 1 person will still be responsible for 50% of the ideas.
Only a few percent of the country is entrepeneurs. Yet entrepeneurs are responsible for more than 50% of our advances.
Entrepeneurs are slightly more likely to come from the families of entrepeneurs – but only slightly.
A substantial portion of our most productive people are “self made” some even coming from poverty.
My point is that it is not the economy that lifts Trump’s boat more than others.
It is the 1% that do most of the lifting. It is how things are. You can try to change whether you are part of the 1% or not, but you can not alter the pattern without harming all. And historical evidence suggests you can not succeed in altering it at all no matter how you try. But you can reduce us all to different levels of poverty.
The boats are not lifted by magic. They are lifted by all of us.
But they are not lifted by all of use equally.
This FACT runs completely at odds to the lefts fixation on fairness and equality.
We are not equal. That is just a fact.
If you are fixated on “inequality” you should note that few of the 1% remain in the 1% for generations.
The 1% of each era is almost entirely made of people who came from the 99% and that will always be true.
I would further note that what makes one part of the 1% is not well understood.
We can define a bunch of criteria – intelligence, perseverience, ….
and these are predictive of success and they are predictive of being in the 1% – which is a small subset of success. But these criteria are not absolute. Some people get into the 1% while not posessing some of these attributes, and some people who seem to have all attributes do not.
Whatever the process it is not precise – and it seems a bit arbitrary – anything we do not understand seems arbitrary. But our lack of understanding does not mean it is in our power to alter.
Another failure of the left – they do not know how things actually work, they are very rarely a part of making them work, but they are certain they can make things work better.
The left constantly violates the hypocratic oath – first do no harm.
This debacle of words between Allan and John has been like watching two punch drunk fighters.
Inventing definitions as they go, doubling back, slicing hairs to prove some long forgotten point.
The claim is debate, but really, it’s just fools talking over each other.
Both Allan and John, though, have the fortitude to keep running in circles in the illusion that they will arrive at some plateau of wisdom that the hoi polloi will never attain.
This, I’m sure, is ‘absolutely’ true.
“Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good with Ketchup. ”
Allan is refreshingly intelligent. Though I would prefer a more substantive debate with him, we agree over most significant issues. Our disagreements are over small points, and therefore the debate trends towards semantics.
Neither of us are “inventing definitions”, though we are disagreeing over narrow aspects of definitions in a specific context.
Further each of us is capable of disagreement without resorting to fallacy or insult.
Nor have either of us made some claim to intellectual superiority with respect to ourselves or others.
I have not seen Allan appeal to his own intellectual authority and neither have I.
We are neither debating nor asserting personal status.
We have each apologized over minor errors, or miscommunications.
How often have you apologized to someone else in a blog post ?
I would greatly prefer a more substantive debate with someone capable of arguing half as well as Allan some issue where there was more meaningful differences.
Are you capable of arguing some issue of substance ?
We test the truth of our positions by subjecting them to criticism by those able to best argue differing views.
The most unfortunate aspect of my debate with Allan is that we agree on so much that no position of consequence is being tested.
Is there someone here on the Left able to make a credible argument ?
Despite the poor arguments she makes, I would atleast give Linda credit for standing up for her views.
Do you beleive something meaningful that you are prepared to defend ?
Or are you just standing on the sidelines offering a pretence of smug superiority because you are unable or unwilling to test your own beliefs ?
George Washington and John Adams were in terms of their times far more wealthy than Trump.
This fixation that legislators, and presidents are barred from the world of commerce is modern.
Our government was constructed exactly the opposite. It was expected that being a senator or representative was a side job, that most of the time senators and representatives would attent to their own affairs.
Jefferson actually did quite well managing his own affairs when he was at Montecello.
He ultimately bankrupted himself because things went to hell when he was away and he spent much of his life away.
Bzzt, wrong!
The rule of law is the application of those limited laws necessary to implement the social contract – our instance the constitution.
The rule of law requires the plain application of the constitution and the law as written.
The role of the courts is as a final authority of sorts on the plain meaning of the words.
The courts are not there to decide what the law should be, but what it is.
Justice Stevens recent call to repeal the 2nd Amendment is enlightened. It is a rejection of the normally disengunous nature of the left, it is a call to lawfullness on the part of the left.
While he is wrong about repealing the 2nd amendment, he is right about the process.
The courts are to decide what the law says – not what it should say. Not even what the majority of us think it should say.
The actual rule of law allows the people to change what the law (or constitution) way when we do not like what it actually says.
John, your response to me is so broad I am taken aback. My points are fairly simple. Trump is dealing with a lot of litigation which is going to pull his focus. And talented lawyers are not that keen to rep him. Because Trump has a well-known tendency to disregard legal advice. That’s all I said. It’s hard to believe you could read any more than that.
You seem to think that the narrow is separable from the broader.
The only aspect of what you are asserting I have any interest in is whether it is lawful or lawless.
I am interested in “the rule of law” not the handcuffing of Trump.
Legitimate legal action against Trump, or Obama or … is laudable.
Illegitimate legal action is vile.
The target does not matter.
Further, creative efforts to overbroad constructions of the law – are lawless – regardless of the target.
The law and constitution mean what they say. If what is said is wrong – change them. We have a process for that.
The courts are NOT instruments of policy. When you attempt to use them that way you are lawless.
As a generalization I fully support any tactic, that is not at odds with the rule of law, that impedes govenrment – even when it makes what I would like to see government accomplish more difficult.
I have preferences, I like some people better that others. I like some policies better than others.
But the rule of law is more important than my preferences.
I have never really understood the emoluments argument about Trump relating to his hotels. It seems to me that the emoluments clause was written to prevent government officials from accepting personal aggrandizement that may create an obligation, sense of obligation or appearance of an obligation that could be satisfied by trading or creating the temptation to trade “state currency” in exchange.
When a foreign state agent stays at the Trump Hotel in D.C. they are exchanging an emolument for the hotels’ services just as any other hotel guest does. Assuming they are paying the same rate in exchange for those services as any other guest, and not overpaying, then the obligation is satisfied by the hotels services.
If this exchange creates no further obligation on the government official than how does this exchange threaten the integrity of the state? To argue that it does is to argue that no government official could have an interest in a private enterprise – which would include direct ownership of a business or owning stocks or bonds.
This would mean, in the case of the presidency, that a business person is excluding from becoming president. But this is not in the constitution which outlines only three requirements.
Has Professor Turley ever written a more detailed analysis of these emoluments claims? If so, where. If not, I would love to hear him address the substance of these claims in more detail – because I don’t really get this whole argument.
When a foreign state agent stays at the Trump Hotel in D.C. they are exchanging an emolument for the hotels’ services just as any other hotel guest does.
PLus they also get to tell Trump, or those close to him, how very much they enjoyed staying at the Trump Hotel, how gorgeous it is, how fabulous the food is, that is the best hotel on the face of the earth, that Trump is a stable genius and a great dealmaker, that he is going to make America great again, that he only weights 239 pounds, and, by the way, what can you do for me today.
Bullsh*t! The people are paying for hotel rooms, you moron. What specious reasoning you exhibit.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.
And aren’t you glad? Now, having been smacked around a little, I hope you see things more clearly!
Oh, the words of a song come to me now, flow sweetly sweet Thames:
You must remember this
The law is not amiss
Emoluments are gifts. . .
Hotel rooms ain’t free
For either you, or me,
We gotta pay the bill!
As time goes bbbbbyyyyyyeeeee!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I wasn’t smacked around in the least. You seem rather confused.
No, you are simply thick headed, and your axons are slow. Just wait, and the sensation will eventually hit you.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Carey: there’s no point in arguing with this moron. You’re in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Natacha, it is so nice of you to come to Carey’s aid. Always nice to see someone so willing to help the handicapped, especially those intellectually challenged. I am sure Carey appreciates it.
It’s so true.
“It’s so true.”
Carey, Is that is why you are unable to construct an argument to support what you say, because you are smart? No, you are dumb to think the way you do and you are frustrated that you don’t have the ability to make an argument in your favor. Being shallow isn’t necessarily bad, but being shallow and not recognizing it makes you appear stupid along with being shallow.
Carey,…
Trump can get around that by letting foreign guests, especially Russian government officials, stay at his hotels for free.😉
I don’t know if the courts have ever defined “emoluments”, but my interpretation of it is that it’s a gift, not a payment for a service.
How about an overpriced service, compared to others?
“Trump’s horels are losing money as room rates plummet”.- Newsweek, Nov. 20, 2017
The emoluments case looks weak enough to start with, but the drop in the price of Trump hotel properties since Trump was elected makes the emoluments case even flimsier.
“Trump’s hotels”
Remember when Trump said he didn’t know any Russians, didn’t do any business with Russians.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/29/trump-fbi-hotel-latvia-investigation-russia-links
Bet emoluments clause ends up in SCOTUS.
Wonder how many of the “judges” (and I use that term loosely) are going to be overturned by SCOTUS?
Doesn’t make any difference to plaintiffs, they won ’cause they took up time there is such. Too bad we don’t have less political judges on the west coast.
Also, the Fatso Hotel is one of the most expensive in the D.C. area. What about booking banquet or meeting rooms for many thousands of dollars, including catering? What about booking the most expensive suites in one of the most-expensive hotels in the area for a whole month? You think Trump doesn’t know about these yuge income-producing deals? You think this doesn’t buy access? Some time ago, they had a listing of some of these bookings on MSNBC. The amounts paid were staggering. Just for fun, get onto one of the hotel booking sites and compare rates. I couldn’t find one more expensive than Fatso Hotel.
Carey makes valid points.
No, Carey doesn’t make valid points. He just says dumb stuff about Trump, and because you hate and despise Trump, you think it’s valid. If Carey said Trump was Hitler, you would think that was valid, too. If Carey said Trump was secretly one of the Lizard People, you would think that was valid, too. If Carey said Trump was the man on the Grassy Knoll, you would think that was valid, too.
Because you are a nut.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
LOL. Squeeky got triggered.
Got triggered??? Hell, I STAY triggered! I got my cup of Joe, and I’m ready to go!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
And you know that these rates were not more expensive than at other places BEFORE Trump ran for office?
Are you assuming that the price differential between Trump hotels and competitors increased since he was elected, Natacha?
Whether Trump is profiting is irrelevant.
Public corruption is NOT profiting as a consequence of being a public servant.
It is providing the benefits or punishments of public service to people differently.
Providing a back channel and expedited service at the state department to those who contribute to your charity is public corruption.
Identify something similar regarding Trump and I will be interested.
Have you forgotten, before Trump was sworn in, his Ethics Lawyer struck a deal whereby all the profits of the Trump International Hotel DC would be donated to the Treasury Dept. during the President’s term(s) of service. Explain how a bribe gets through that constraint?
Turley opined that money isn’t a problem in politics. Therefore, he does not recognize that money buys access. Yes, incredible, in light of Republican politicians hunkering down to avoid constituents and the fact that Senators and Congressional representatives accept campaign donations from outside of their districts but do not permit e-mails through their government accounts if they come from outside of the representational area.
Since we know that businessmen are driven by altruism, when they donate to a campaigns they expect nothing in return (sarcasm).
“Turley opined that money isn’t a problem in politics. Therefore, he does not recognize that money buys access.”
It certainly bought access to the Clintons. As Hillary said they were dead broke leaving the White House. I take note that since her career as Secretary of State ended the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton bank accounts haven’t been rising anywhere near as quickly.
Is it the money or is it too many politicians are ethically deficient?
My point exactly.
Free exchange is free exchange. It is voluntary and it is not inherently corrupt.
It is only wrong when one party may not trade whatever they are offering to the other.
Government corruption is not about getting money or gifts.
It is about the preferential divying out of government power.
It is unimportant whether you are benefiting friends or those you have received gifts of some kind from.
All that matters is that you are excercising the rule of man, not of law.
This might interest you:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-29/hillary-clinton-suffers-90-cut-speech-fee
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Citizens United decision supported by Republicans
Nothing wrong with CU.
Are you even familiar with the decision ?
A private company mostly democrats made an unflattering film about Hillary and sought to run it before the election.
How exactly is that not speach ? How is that not “political speach” the most protected form ?
The core decision resolved a conflict between 150 years of prior decisions and a few recent stupid decisions. Personally it did not go far enough.
The “corporations are people” claim is not only eroneous, but spouting it merely revealed the constitutional stupidity of those raising it – including a couple of supreme court justices.
Corporate Personhood is a convenient legal fiction. It is not a fact, it is not the law, it is a legal simplification.
Corporations are not persons, they are hundreds, thousands, millions of people acting in free association.
It is long established constitutional law that people do not lose their rights when they act together collectively. Must leftists beleive that the collective is supperior to the individual.
Regardless, a corporation is just free people chosing to act towards common purposes.
If you do not like what a corporation you won does – sell your stock.
The ability to petition the government was extremely important when the Constitution was being considered. People run businesses and one of the reasons people petition government is to more effectively run their businesses. John has provided good rationals for the decision, but corporations are provided special favors so I don’t know that the decision is a slam dunk because of all the details surrounding corporations even though basically I agree with John.
You might want to consider that if the decision went the other way it would also go against unions that are corporations themselves. I’ll bet that your decision would be no for corporations and yes for unions because you are not concerned with the law. You are concerned with your ideology which by the way is quite confused, distorted and leads to the type of government Stalin created.
So long as government has power it will be used to grant special favors.
There is very little law necessary to criminalize that.
But the existance of law does not magically prevent misconduct when the incentives are large enough.
Further criminalizing something 100 times over does not change that either.
Every single law targeting public corruption comes at the expense of our rights.
Public corruption must be illegal, but making it illegal 1000 times over accomplishes nothing but limiting our rights.
If you wish to reduce public corruption – reduce government.
If you ever were completely able to eliminate corporate special favors – you will just see some other group find some way to get special favors. The incentives to rent government power are far to great.
John, I thought when you responded under my name you were going to respond to this “corporations are provided special favors so I don’t know that the decision is a slam dunk because of all the details surrounding corporations even though basically I agree with John.”
You didn’t and though I read what you said I couldn’t figure out what in my statement you were directly commenting on. Perhaps you were just adding rather than demonstrating any disagreement with what I said. There was no way for me to know because aside from the pronouns frequently used to encompass the group rather than the individual there was no other indication I clearly saw.
On any topic there are many possible things that can be said.
It is not some error for me to choose to make an argument different from what you expect.
Nor is it even disagreement.
Your positions and mine are not identical, nor do we place the same importance to things that we otherwise agree on. But we appear to have very large common ground.
Sometimes I might choose to concur with your arguments.
But mostly even where I agree I am going to seek to make a different argument or point of my own.
That is not disagreement.
With respect to what you quoted.
The decision should have been a slam dunk regardless. While I agree that it might not have been, if it was not a slam dunk, it was not because of the constitution, the law, or the principles, but because the courts often seek to figure out how to fix a law, rather than leaving that to the legislature where it belongs.
The fact that corporations are provided special favors, is not a justification for limiting free speech.
Rights “shall not be infringed”. The need to constrain corporate favors does not justify infringing on rights – find another way.
John, you provided a very dry textbook style summary of corporations in the context of the discussion. I am a bit troubled not at your statement which is acceptable rather I think that the answer given is too simplistic and requires a lot more in-depth thought.
As persons we accept responsibility. As persons that are members of a corporation we permit the corporate vail to supplant our responsibility. As citizens in the liberal persuasion we are considered citizens and therefore take responsibility for our individual actions something that doesn’t happen under the corporate veil which is an invention or convenience offered by rule of law and not existing without it. I could go into further depth, but that is more or less the consideration I had when I made my comment.
“The corporate Veil” is an entirely independent issue.
It is not in the constitution. I disagree with SOME of the specifics of your assertions regarding corporate liability, But that is an entirely different debate.
A person can not cede their rights – except voluntarily and never to government.
There are excellent reasons to maintain the corporate veil.
So good that states have added liability limits to other business forms such as LLC’s and LLP’s.
There is a reasonable principle that people have liability only for their decisions and actions,
that liability related purely to ownership without actively participating in the decisions is limited to the value of the property itself.
But again that is a completely different debate.
People can not cede their right to free speach to government – not even voluntarily, in return for some protection of liability.
Societally we can decide whether the corporate form protects passive investors from liability beyond their share of ownership.
We can decide that either way – and deal with the consequences of that choice.
““The corporate Veil” is an entirely independent issue.”
It is not an independent issue because among other things the corporate veil has altered the responsibilities of the corporate entity. Rights and responsibilities occur together.
“A person can not cede their rights – except voluntarily and never to government.”
Corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution as you recognize.There is no definition in the Constitution of what a corporation is. It is a creation of the law that does not relinquish individual rights though it is a mechanism for escaping responsibility.
“There are excellent reasons to maintain the corporate veil.”
That is not an issue in this discussion. There are loads of reasons we don’t do things even though they may be excellent suggestions.
“People can not cede their right to free speach to government”
Just because one is a member of a corporation doesn’t mean they have relinquished their right to free speech. There are mechanisms that can remedy the problem.
“Rights and responsibilities occur together.”
Nope!
Actual rights are something you do NOT have some positive obligation to government in return for.
If something is an actual right – it comes without responsibilities.
Nature can take our rights as it pleases.
Government may infringe on our rights only in response to our initiating violence against others,
our actually harming others, or our failing to keep committments to others.
Those are the only “responsibilities” attached to rights.
We may have a very broad set of responsibilities that we enter into voluntarily.
We may also have a collection of duties that we owe as a human.
But those duties can not be enforced by government.
We are as an example obligated to help our fellow man.
But that is an individual duty and governmnet has nothing to do with it.
Further there is no possibility of our actually fullfilling it.
We each must determine for ourselve the extent we will live up to it.
Responsibilities either come as a consequence of privilidges of commitments.
Such as contracts.
Contract benefits – often called rights are important, and govenrment must enforce them,
But they are not natural rights, and they come with obligations – which is part of why they are not natural rights.
Allan writes: “Rights and responsibilities occur together.”
John responds “Nope!”
Once again you can’t go off half-cocked everytime someone addresses a question correctly but doesn’t address them in the same tone you would like them to use.
Life requires the individual to do things to sustain it
Liberty requires one not to rob a bank and get caught.
Property (happiness) requires one to meet certain conditions.
These responsibilities do not have to be enforced by the government, but for example, if you don’t take the responsibility of nourishment you will surely end your life.
Life requires the individual to do things to sustain it
Liberty requires one not to rob a bank and get caught.
Property (happiness) requires one to meet certain conditions.
These responsibilities do not have to be enforced by the government, but for example, if you don’t take the responsibility of nourishment you will surely end your life.
Natural rights exist whether we want to acknowledge their existence or not. Being irresponsible towards securing those rights doesn’t make the unalienable nature of those rights go away. It makes the security of those rights go away.
I prefer to think of our natural rights beginning in the state of nature. Alone in nature we are 100% responsible for the security of our rights. In civil society, we enable government to do certain things to secure those rights. In turn, we disable certain things we can do for that security. In a government of the people, we still retain 100% responsibility to ensure we are secure in those rights. We have no requirement to be responsible towards the security of our rights. We are experiencing that right now with the rise of the administrative state. Apparently many of the people have become so apathetic towards that responsibility, they’ve effectively become property of the state, with all the rights you would expect for sheep.
“Being irresponsible towards securing those rights doesn’t make the unalienable nature of those rights go away. It makes the security of those rights go away.”
Olly, you are absolutely correct. The government is not there to nourish anyone. We traded a small amount of individual rights for protection as stated in the Constitution. That is it. We even have an amendment process.
The best discussion of rights is in the declaration, not the constitution.
Mostly the courts disregard the declaration which is unfortunate as it is one of the most significant documents in human history.
It lays out reasonably well the scottish enlightenment concept of individual rights, the social contract, and the purpose of government. ‘
That is the justification for our revolution and the foundation of or right to self government.
The Constitution does NOT for the most part address rights, or theory, or the social contract, or any of that.
The constitution is a blueprint for the federal government – and to a lessor extent the state governments.
It states explicitly what the state (government) is permitted to do. Reserving everything else to either the states or the people.
But it does not (for the most part) explain why it is that way. For that you must look to the declaration
John writes referring to the Constitution: “But it does not (for the most part) explain why it is that way.”
The Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Declaration of Independence was written first and signed. The Constitution was written second and signed at a later date by many of the same people. Therefore though the Declaration of Independence still guides us, in a conflict between the two the one with the later date generally prevails.
Therefore though the Declaration of Independence still guides us, in a conflict between the two the one with the later date generally prevails.
Comparing the two documents by signing dates is a fatal error. It’s equivalent to an organization disregarding their own vision and guiding principles because they rewrote their mission statement. Unless we rewrite our vision (DoI), then our mission (Constitution) and amendments are still valid only if they are support the vision.
” fatal error.”
Olly, the Constitution is a contract. If you have a rental lease and it changes along with the valid signatures of the parties involved then the new lease prevails.
The Constitution was a compromise signed by various parties. We can presume they all knew what was in the Declaration of Independence.
We can presume they all knew what was in the Declaration of Independence.
That would be another fatal error. In your example, if the original owners of the property envisioned it would eventually lease the property without discriminatory practices, then their business model should lead to that vision. If subsequent owners of that property structure a different business model, it will either work to support the original vision or they will rewrite the vision.
What has been done in this country is defying the terms of the contract by ignoring the original vision and replacing it with the designs of popular visionary personalities.
“if the original owners of the property envisioned it”
My comment was referring to those signing the Constitution, not those signing a revision of a lease agreement.
“What has been done in this country is defying the terms of the contract by ignoring the original vision and replacing it with the designs of popular visionary personalities.”
You are correct, but visions are not signed contracts and I am discussing the Constitution which in essence was a signed contract. That is why I believe many of those visions should not be considered valid.
Allan, you said:
in a conflict between the two the one with the later date generally prevails.
I don’t know why you are fixating on dates or signatories of the two documents. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution have completely different purposes. It would be like saying your destination is not relevant if you change course. The destination; ends, (vision) set by our founders in the DoI is as relevant today as it was when it was created. How; means, (mission) we go about getting there is our Constitution. If the two are in conflict, it will always be in the execution of the means and not the ends.
The problem with the analogy is that the Constitution is not a contract.
The declaration is.
The constitution is the drawings and specifications for a conforming government.
Amendments would be analogous to change orders.
Following my building construction(and other professions) analogy further.
The contract is the declaration.
The constitution and amendments become additional contract documents.
First you have:
I agree to build you a house – and here is your statement of needs (declaration)
Then we add here is a proposed set of plans and specs – which when ratified become part of your contract.
The declaration is what you want from government, the constitution becomes – here is our design to provide you what you want, and ratification is our agreement that we accept the design as meeting the contract requirements.
Amendments – are subsequent changes to the contract as we discover we did nto get exactly what we wanted.
I see the DoI in your analogy as the idea of a house. The ends. Actually any house recognized as the ideal house, for any person, in any society, in any country. Our constitution is the means to build that house. The amendments are changes to the means and not the ends.
This discussion reminds me of going through overhauls for our ships. We would have the specs on what we wanted our ship to be when the overhaul was completed. Then the bids would come in and the best was accepted. What everyone knew but wouldn’t say out loud is that while the vision of the completed ship would not change, there was a lot of money to be made by constant change mods.
You are very close to understanding my analogy.
But the DoI is the idea of the house. It is the definition of what a house as a concept should be.
The government we actually have is the actual house.
Principles live in the realm of ideas.
The application of principles is the constitution – the plans, specs, change orders.
Then the mess we have is the actual house.
This is also the way real building design works.
The results in the real world – strive to reflect ideas,
but they exist in the real world, not that of ideas,
and so they are less than perfect reflections of the ideas and principles.
“First you have: I agree to build you a house – and here is your statement of needs (declaration)Then we add here is a proposed set of plans and specs – which when ratified become part of your contract.”
John, I think you are making up law to create an environment that agrees with your ideology. Using your house analogy.
‘Brothers and sisters, mom and dad are miserable people so in order to free ourselves from their rule we will rent an apartment together since that is the best we can do.’ That is the Declaration of Independence.
They find an apartment and all of them sign their names to a lease. That is the Constitution.
I am not making up law.
I am making an analogy.
Of course it is made up. All analogies are made up.
The questions is how good is the analogy.
It is not perfect, but I think it is good enough to be useful.
With respect to that – I think my analogy is much better than your apartment one.
Obviously you differ.
Then we disagree on the respective legal positions of the DoI and the Constitution. The Constitution is the contract and between its four corners is the law. It is only after exhausting the search for law in the Constitution do or should we seek other information to determine the law. That could be the DoI or comments made by historical figures or a whole host of other things that were not said in the DoI and might actually give rise to evidence that some might feel subverts the DoI, but that is how I believe the law functions.
I do not disagree with your discription of the process.
We follow blueprints and specs as closely as possible – but when they do not have the answers – or answer ambiguously we consult the design.
When we MUST leave the constitution
There are still priorities and we do not all share the same ones.
Gorsuch and Scali are both “textualists” but when the answer is not in the text they diverge radically.
Scali goes to democratic process, Gorsuch goes to natural rights and natural law.
The notes of the convention, the remarks of the authors the federalist papers, dictionaries of the time, and other such sources are still first for the purpose of understanding the meaning of the words.
The “plain text” always comes first. That is important – because the text is something that can be changed and done with reasonable precision.
Once we start looking at underlying principles – what did the founders think and beleive – not what did their words say, then the DoI comes in – probably at the top.
Though the federalist papers would be very high – because they were used to “sell” the constitution to the voters to get it ratified.
“I don’t know why you are fixating on dates or signatories of the two documents.”
Olly, because John had said a few things including “Mostly the courts disregard the declaration which is unfortunate ”
The ideas of our unalienable rights lie within the Declaration of Independence, but the contract, or rule of law, is dictated by the Constitution not by the DoI though it has merit. In fact, the Constitution IMO didn’t live up to the DoI, but I still believe it prevails. Because of our differences, I brought up contract law with regard to renting or leasing a home and stated that the newer revised signed contract would take precedence over the former. I regard the Constitution as a contract. You may regard it differently but I think that would be a wrong approach.
You say: “Unless we rewrite our vision (DoI), then our mission (Constitution) and amendments are still valid only if they are support the vision.”
I think you are wrong unless you wish and are able to prove that the Constitution is an illegal contract. I think John recognizes that in his statement copied above. I think those that signed the Constitution recognized that as well.
The ideas of our unalienable rights lie within the Declaration of Independence, but the contract, or rule of law, is dictated by the Constitution not by the DoI though it has merit. In fact, the Constitution IMO didn’t live up to the DoI, but I still believe it prevails.
To begin, the DoI and Constitution serve two completely different purposes. The DoI was not written as our governing document. It was a designed to give legitimacy to everything the colonists were to do moving forward. It also was designed to give any people in any location on this planet a new understanding that there is no divine right of kings. It made the case that certain rights exist merely because we exist and that those rights cannot be given or taken away. It also stated that everyone is created with these rights equally. It’s not a contract; it’s not as if you can agree to the terms or not. They are non-negotiable statements of natural law just as one might describe gravity.
Now, of course the American colonies did not conform to this new understanding of rights. It was new. This is why I refer to it as our Vision Statement. A vision statement describes in present tense what the leaders ideal state is for the nation. We weren’t there, but we are agreeing this statement will be what everyone will be saying about us when we get there. It is the star we set our course on. If you think of the colonies and now our United States as a large fleet of ships, the DoI gives all of them the same star to navigate by. Those rules of navigation, which ship is in command, etc. are not found in the DoI. All of that is found in the Articles of Confederation and Constitution. The mission (what we do, how we do it and who do we do it for) statement begins with the preamble and the subsequent articles and amendments describe what is to govern our actions. This rule of law, if done properly will take us from our current state towards the vision laid out in the DoI. That star doesn’t go away. It doesn’t get superseded.
This is why the progressives have worked tirelessly to make our DoI go away. They know there can be no just governing rule of law that violates those principles of the DoI. Make the DoI outdated, and then any form of government that is devised from that point is its own guiding star. This is where the fourth self-evident truth comes in.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Olly writes: “To begin, the DoI and Constitution serve two completely different purposes. ”
I thought I said that when I said: “The ideas of our unalienable rights lie within the Declaration of Independence, but the contract, or rule of law, is dictated by the Constitution not by the DoI…”
“laid out in the DoI. That star doesn’t go away. It doesn’t get superseded.”
The vision doesn’t get superseded, but the law represented by the Constitution doesn’t entirely conform to the vision and that is why slavery was not directly addressed in the Constitution.
“progressives have worked tirelessly to make our DoI go away. ”
The left doesn’t accept individual liberty except where that idea aids them in the promotion of collectivism.
To distinguish the left from the conservative/libertarian I sometimes will say that in a race the left wants everyone at the finish line equally. The conservative/libertarian wants everyone equal at the starting line.
“Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”
We haven’t gotten there yet.
The question of the declaration becomes relevant when you can not find a clear answer in the constitution.
Unenumerated rights would be an example.
Overall, I do not think the constitution is perfect – or was intended to be.
But it is good enough, and if it was interpreted as written, leaving us to choose to amend it when we find that result is wrong, we would have far far better government than we do.
“The question of the declaration becomes relevant when you can not find a clear answer in the constitution”
Other law and history also become relevant, not just the DoI.
“if it was interpreted as written”
We are a nation of people and some aren’t very smart so they don’t recognize the Constitution for what it is. They will promote the preamble “general welfare” argument instead of the simple recognition that the Constitution listed what was to be done or not to be done where the preamble has no legal power.
Other law and history also become relevant, not just the DoI.
The DoI is part of the historical foundations of the constitution.
Common law is relevant – because the constitution actually says so.
The Declaration is a contract.
The constitution is the blueprints and specifications for a govenrment that fullfills that contract.
“The Declaration is a contract.The constitution is the blueprints and specifications for a govenrment that fullfills that contract.”
John, if that were true slavery wouldn’t have existed. We are going to have to agree on disagreeing. The law is the Constitution. The Constitution was a compromise. Does anyone think that slavery wasn’t a problem in creating the contract known as the Constitution?
Blueprints and specs do not always conform to the contract or the design.
They act as amendments to the contract.
That would be correct – though supliments might be better – Change Orders are more like amendments.
Regardless, that would still make the constitution tblue prints and specs – where the details are described, and the DoI the root contract – where the actual agreement as well as the principles and design is stated.
“that would still make the constitution tblue prints and specs ”
Why call the Constitution blueprints when you can call it what it is, THE LAW.
good observations,
but a better analogy might be that it is like saying the latest sales slogan trumps the corporations mission statement because it is written after.
The declaration is a justification for revolution.
It has two parts – the second is a list of greivances.
The first is a declaration of the principles of government – the social contract.
The declaration says “here is the contract, and here is how George III” breached it.
The constitution is the plans and specifications for a new govenrment.
Purportedly those plans and specifications conform to the contract,
But it is NOT a restatement of the social contract.
It is SUPPOSED to be an example government that conforms to that social contract.
John writes: “It is SUPPOSED to be an example government that conforms to that social contract.”
The important thing to remember is that the Constitution never fully conformed to the social contract of the Declaration of Independence. That is why Amendments 13,14, and 15 were needed.
I am familar with the preamble to the constitution.
The Declaration is a relatively explicit sxposition of the social contract. It is a justification for government and for revolution by noting how the existing government had failed to meet the obligations of a government to its people.
The preamble of the constitution is meaningless fluff. It is pleasant words, but not much more. It has no thesis behind it, and it si given no meaning by the courts. It does nto really define the purpose of government or its limits in principled terms.
The remained of the document defines specific powers as well as limits, but rarely if at all explains why.
This is not a fault – the constitution serves an entirely different purpose than the declaration.
The decalartion MUST provide the means to divine what is and what is not legitimate government – otherwise the founders are traitors.
The constitution is an effort to impliment those principles. stating them is not necescary, conforming to them is.
John, the preamble gave you what you were looking for even if it didn’t satisfy your wants. It is an explanation, but nothing said there do I consider part of the contract made by the signers of the Constitution. Others use the preamble to wrongfully prove their point, but for better or worse the preamble responds to your question.
Suffice it to say, the Constitution was a compromise signed by many of the same people that approved of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution IMO did not live up to the words of the Declaration of Independence but that is the law we live by.
Nothing I disagree with.
With rare exceptions I do not make “constitutional” arguments.
Or atleast not arguments where the constitution is a self authorizing authority.
Natural rights are natural rights – whether the constitution properly addresses them or not.
Nearly all the time, the constitution supports my rights based arguments.
But if it does not or someone claims “you do not interpret the constitution that way”.
that is irrelevant. Our rights are our rights – even if the constitution is wrong or more commonly it is interperetted wrong.
I am willing to abide by “the rule of law” – i.e. the constitution is the foundation of our law, and must be followed or changed. But only to the extent that the constitution is read as written.
Most importantly as NARROWLY defining the scope of government and BROADLY defining rights.
If you want to review all of this examined in excruciating detail
https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465051006
“Allan writes: “Rights and responsibilities occur together.””
If that is what you wrote – I appologize. But I do not think it is. And I am lazy and could not find it with a quick check.
My challenge is to the claim that rights imply responsibilities.
I will cede that CONTRACTUAL rights usually (possibly always) have obligations.
Contractual rights are rights given to you voluntarily by another in return for something else.
Natural rights – most of what we are debating have no obligations. If they did they would not be rights.
Life is not a right.
Rights are negative – you have a right not to be killed by another person.
Lightning, cancer could strike you anytime, and you have no redress, because no right was violated.
Not doing something is not an obligation – atleast not in anyway but the typical leftist way of mangling words.
An obligation is usually defined as a requirement to act.
Not a requirement to not act.
A right is something others are BARRED from acting to interfere with.
You are NOT allowed to murder – or as you noted you are NOT allowed to rob a bank.
I have not thought this particular part out thoroughly, but I think you want to be careful of trying to simple invert the logic – the negation of some propositions is not always the exact inverse – because all propositions are not perfectly binary.
You do not have a right to happiness (or property) you have a right to pursue it, and to keep it is you succeed in obtaining it, or atleast not to have it taken from you by force by other humans.
Failing to nourish your self might result in your death – but it is not a violation of your rights.
I am not sure that you can violate your own rights – and I certainly do not want government to be able to punish you for “violating your own rights”.
Need I remind you I AM Libertarian.
Government can NOT bar you from shooting heroin, from shooting yourself, from doing bad things to yourself.
If making poor choices is a violation of your own rights, that government can use force to remedy – then there are no rights.
Freedom does not exist if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes that do not harm OTHERS.
John, I am copying an entire paragraph where the enclosed quoted material was mine and the rest is yours I am placing the paragraph below in [ ].
[“Allan writes: “Rights and responsibilities occur together.””
If that is what you wrote – I appologize. But I do not think it is. And I am lazy and could not find it with a quick check.]
The statement in quotes existed identically 5 times including your last reply. It took less than 15 seconds to copy the phrase and do a search. I don’t know why you would think differently especially since it was copied so many times by you and me. Your apology is accepted. However, in the next paragraph, you say “My challenge is to the claim that rights imply responsibilities.” But I didn’t use the word “imply” I stated “occur together” and that is an entirely different concept.
You then continue essentially in the same manner by saying “Natural rights – most of what we are debating have no obligations. If they did they would not be rights.” But, once again I didn’t say natural rights have obligations. I said, “Rights and responsibilities occur together.” That too is a different concept than you are implying. With this repetition of essentially the same idea, it sounds like you don’t like to be shown that you are wrong.
After these repetitious claims, you start playing word games that are very important in your political lexicon, but not so important in mine. You say, “Life is not a right.” Tell your story to Jefferson and everyone who signed their name to The Declaration of Independence. There is no discussion of positive or negative rights in the language, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Perhaps your discussion is to make it easier for people to understand what that means as well as to make an ideological point. Perhaps your lexicon is so engraved in your head that you can’t prevent yourself and therefore you lecture instead of discussing what was obvious to the founders and many other people. I can skip the lecture, just like one would skip the lecture on simple mathematics in an advanced engineering course.
In the midst of this lecture, you stated: “Need I remind you I AM Libertarian.”
In the past, you stated you were a classical liberal and now you state you are a Libertarian where the capital L might infer membership in the Libertarian party rather than simply being of libertarian persuasion where one could actually belong to the Democratic or Republican Party. I admit that some might consider classical liberals and libertarians the same, but the libertarian has the added problem of being thought of as a libertarian at the extreme end of the spectrum. I think of a classical liberal as more of a Milton Friedman type especially since when asked his ideology Milton Friedman said if he were pushed for an answer he would call himself a classical liberal. By the way, I never heard him ( doesn’t mean I heard every one of his comments) in discussion differentiate positive and negative rights in the discussion.
John, in essence, you are placing form over function and doing so in a way that is attempting to force your particular form onto others and that is not very libertarian of you. 😀
This is getting too semantic
“This is getting too semantic”
That was precisely what some of your comments created, semantic arguments. Even where I agreed with you, you found an argument to disagree with, but it was based on semantics or something similar.
““There are excellent reasons to maintain the corporate veil.”
That is not an issue in this discussion. There are loads of reasons we don’t do things even though they may be excellent suggestions.”
All correct – but you raised the issue.,
And you connected it to rights.
That is where there is a problems.
“All correct – but you raised the issue.,And you connected it to rights.”
Absolutely! “Rights and responsibilities occur together.”
““People can not cede their right to free speach to government”
Just because one is a member of a corporation doesn’t mean they have relinquished their right to free speech. There are mechanisms that can remedy the problem.”
The only remedy for government abridging rights is to bar govenrment from abridging rights.
I would further note that for things that are not rights – it is prefereable to move dealing with them out of govenrment.
“The only remedy for government abridging rights is to bar govenrment from abridging rights.”
John Doe has a right to free speech (that technically can be abridged). If John Doe is a member of a corporation John Doe’s rights have not been abridged no matter what happens to the corporation. That is where the question began. “corporations are provided special favors so I don’t know that the decision is a slam dunk because of all the details surrounding corporations even though basically I agree with John.”
Don’t get so caught up in the rhetoric that you lose sight of the issue under discussion.
If John Doe is a member of a corporation and the corporations speech is abridged then John Does rights HAVE been abridged – as have the other members of the corporation.
People do not lose their rights when they voluntarily gather in free association for some common purpose.
Gathering is an effort to amplify those rights by acting in concert.
Restricting the free speach of a corporation is restricting the free speach AND free assocaition of all its members.
This is true not merely of corporations, but churches, unions, civic groups, any way in which humans gather together for a common purpose.
Further as these are “free associations” – these associations NOT government get to decide for themselves, what their purposes are and what their rules are.
While govenrment – because it is not voluntary, can only act with the consent of supermajorities,
voluntary groups can act on the consent of minorities, or really any basis at all – those of disagree are always free to leave.
You can construct socialism, communism or any other arrangment you want contained within a limited government – so long is it is NOT the govenrment, and so long as it is entirely voluntary.
There is not a thing that Linda or those like her are prohibited from doing on their own or as part of larger voluntary groups. But they must persuade rather than force people to join, and they must be free to leave.
As a disclaimer, in the first part of this discussion, I stated that my opinion on this case leaned in the direction of the court’s findings, but I was still troubled by the case because corporations are a creation of government. I would have to delve a lot deeper to satisfy myself completely. My statement was:
“corporations are provided special favors so I don’t know that the decision is a slam dunk because of all the details surrounding corporations even though basically I agree with John.”
John writes: “If John Doe is a member of a corporation and the corporations speech is abridged then John Does rights HAVE been abridged – as have the other members of the corporation.”
They still have their rights. John Doe still exists and has the same address as he had and continues to enjoy his life choices and home in the same fashion as before. He has not lost his rights and can continue to advocate for things along with all willing people of that corporation. The amplification you talk about is in part amplified by those voices that disagree with the actions of the corporation yet are included in the corporate claim.
“these associations NOT government get to decide for themselves, what their purposes are and what their rules are.”
That by itself doesn’t make these entities ‘persons’.
“voluntary groups can act on the consent of minorities”
That doesn’t make these voluntary groups persons.
The freedom to associate and petition are legitimate claims, but you are utilizing extraneous factors to argue your case.
No they do not have their rights.
Included in our rights is the right to act in groups – free association.
You are saying I am free to sing solo’s but there is no right to form and join a chorus.
There is no right to have a chorus that reflects your tastes. But there is a right to add your voice to any chorus of your chosing.
You are obliterating the free association rights of the first amendment into nothing.
You are actually attacking the core of progress. You are pushing an incredibly regressive position.
You are essentially saying you only have the right to what you make for your self.
That if you cooperate with others to be even more productive – you may not share in the increased bounty.
Amoung our INDIVIDUAL rights, is the right to cooperate with others, and to share the benefits – when there are some.
“You are saying I am free to sing solo’s but there is no right to form and join a chorus.”
No one is saying you do not have a right to join a chorus.
You can add your voice to the chorus.
You can associate freely with the chorus.
“You are actually attacking the core of progress. You are pushing an incredibly regressive position.”
Assuming we disagree on the outcome of the Supreme Court decision explain the legal basis for your statement.
None of your examples pertain to the discussion at hand and one certainly doesn’t lose their rights based upon association.
My arguments rest primarly on logic, not law.
Law rests on logic.
But just as the constitution is not perfect, the law is not either.
Sometimes humans make logic errors, but logic is actually perfect – atleast to the best of our knowledge.
The core – at which we seem to be in strong agreement is that with few exceptions individual rights can not be infringed on by government. That is a simplification – so lets not argue about the simplification.
But the next level is human associations with other humans.
The left ultimately values the collective above the individual, further it sees them as distinct.
I do not.
Way to many arguments – particularly libertarian or constitutionalist ones pretend there is only the individual.
What I am saying is that individuals can and do act in concert. That it is important – that it is actually critical to raising standard of living – things such as the division of labor REQUIRE specialization, and voluntary cooperation.
My key point is that we can start from a foundation of individual rights and still address VOLUNTARY collective arrangements without changing frameworks.
At the least a voluntary group has exactly the same rights as any individual member – not LESS. That is critical, and that is where the divergence with the left.
I am not sure that the rights of groups are summations. I do not think you can gain rights acting in groups,
but you can gain many other things – power as an example.
Finally we can for the purpose of logical or legal analysis “pretend” that a group is a person, because every group has the rights or the members of the group.
I would further note that it must be this way – otherwise you significantly disadvantage and disincentivize acting in voluntary groups.
“My arguments rest primarly on logic, not law. Law rests on logic. But just as the constitution is not perfect, the law is not either.”
Not all of the Constitution rests on logic, but it is still the law. Therefore what appears logical has to be logical in the context of the Constitution.
“Finally we can for the purpose of logical or legal analysis “pretend” that a group is a person, because every group has the rights or the members of the group.”
If you were referring to an earlier discussion then let me remind you that every group is not a corporation.
“Not all of the Constitution rests on logic, but it is still the law. Therefore what appears logical has to be logical in the context of the Constitution.”
We are miscommunicating. Logic is many things – one of those is how we construct law from words.
The words of the constitution are what is assembled into meaning.
But logic is the process. If the result is contradiction – either you made an error or there is an error in the constitution.
Regardless, if the logic is correct, and the logic says something is wrong – something is wrong.
There is no “oh but it is the constitution”, exception.
“if the logic is correct, and the logic says something is wrong – something is wrong.”
That is a good reason for the amendment process to exist.
The entities are not persons. The law of corporate personhood is just a legal trick to avoid the complexity of having to deal with the rights of dozens – and today millions of owners.
All corporate personhood means is that for convenience the courts take the agregate rights of all the owners and pretend they are the rights of a single fictitious corporate person.
Destroying the concept of corporate personhood does not mean the rights go away, it just means dealing with them is more complex – because now there are millions of people, not one pseudo person.
regardless the point is the “trick” is a convenience, not a necescity. the same result will be reached without corporate personhood.
“The law of corporate personhood is just a legal trick to avoid the complexity of having to deal with the rights of dozens – and today millions of owners.”
OK, I will use your term “legal trick” and add your phrase “for convenience the courts take the agregate rights of all the owners”
Legal tricks and convenience do not constitute rights. I am not against the court decision, but I am not satisfied with its propriety. I think your explanation of the decision is barking up the wrong tree. I think there are a lot better trees in the forest than you are considering.
John Doe has his rights with or without the corporation.
“Legal tricks and convenience do not constitute rights. I am not against the court decision, but I am not satisfied with its propriety. I think your explanation of the decision is barking up the wrong tree. I think there are a lot better trees in the forest than you are considering.
John Doe has his rights with or without the corporation.”
I have zero problems with saying “there is no such thing as corporate personhood”.
What I have a problem with is going from their to – therefore corporations (or any group) has no rights, or has less rights than any of the individuals it is made of.
My argument is NOT about “corporations” it is about “free associations” – corporations are just one form.
The corporate veil is a completely independent issue. I think there is a strong argument for it.
And I suspect it too is a right.
If you loan your car to a friend with the expectation their use will be legal, and they rob a bank, you could lose your car, but you are not an accessory.
While if you knew he was robbing a bank – you have committed a crime by providing your car.
Liability purely for ownership is limited to the loss of the property.
Additional liability only exists to the extent you participate in decisions (control).
I would further note that I do not find any consequential difference between any form of free association.
I do not care if you are a church, a charity, a union, an llp, an llc, Scorp, ccorp. Public or private corp.
The relationship to government is the same – or should be.
Ordinary free exchange – trading a legal service for money or visa versa is NOT an emolument.
An emolument requires trading something for preferential government treatment.
These anti-Trump claims are atleast once – and often much more than once removed.
To make an Emolument claim, you would need to provide that foreigners were using Trump facilities specifically to curry favor. That they were paying MORE than the going rate, and that they expected and would likely get preferential treatment.
That would be far easier to do with say the 100’s of Millions from russian oligarchs to the Clinton foundation, than with people renting a Trump hotel Room.
Yep. But what you have to realize is, that Democrats don’t do “reasoning.” Anymore, they pretty much operate off emotions. The Democratic Party Narrative is like Holy Writ to them, and intellectually, they are on a par with some bumpkin in West Virginny, who dances around with Rattlesnakes, and ululates in Tongues.
So, they don’t give a hoot what an emolument is, as long as it reinforces their religious belief that Trump is Satan. They will line up in the Tent Meeting, start sweating, drooling, and holy rolling around on the floor, in perfect time with the guy at the front jumping around like a maniac! Hallelujah Brothers and Sisters!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Funny, I don’t think any of your imaginary shenanigans are part of the procedure for federal grand juries. Or perhaps you imagine that federal indictments and guilty pleas in federal court are imaginary too?
this is to “I luvs me some straw man” squeeKKK
1. Indictments of a dozen Russian internet trolls he’ll never have to defend in court
2. Indictments of people on process crimes
3. Indictment of Paul Manafort re his business interests (which did not involve the Trump campaign and which are kosher only if you fancy a mandate to conduct a counter-intelligence investigation covers anything Mueller cares to dumpster dive in. Remember the Criminal Division?)
Which is to say a fishing expedition. IOW, the usual deceitful lawfare from you people.
So I’m not alone in my thinking. I wish Turley would take this issue on directly like this.
Partisan Democrats and their lawfare artists don’t care about the substantive issue. It’s just a tool they use in playing their games. Their ilk didn’t give a rip about Joseph Kennedy’s business interests, or Lady Bird Johnson’s, or Jimmy Carter’s. You’re assuming they have principles. When Corey Robin said conservatives have only improvisations, he was projecting as his kind do. The latest improvisation is that someone who owns a business is debarred from the presidency. The only people who would qualify for public office would be people such as themselves, who have work histories like Barack Obama’s.
Short version. All of his businesses are in a blind trust. All are operated by others. How they are operated has nothing to do with Trump nor any other President etc etc etc.
Flip side. Clinton is President. He has his congress write a special tax write off package. They pass it and he signs it Files it away for future use. After eight years claims to massively in debt. Becomes Mr. Nobody again. First year writes off taxes on the 18 year plan. His friends at NY Time follow suit. BUT at the time one then Democrat Donor gets the story and his CPA’s and and tax attorneys follow this curiousl but legal law. After all when in NYC do what the Democrats say or go broke. All of it legal.
Next Trump makes President and suddenlyh the 18 year write off is horribl! Unless your name is Bubba and of course the story comes from the other user the NY Times.
So now we go onto the attempted theft of property namely china from China
One way around the emoluments rule is just steal the stuff and sahy Duuuhhh What?
There is no way Trump won’t be making money because he is President. There is also no way that Trump won’t be losing money because he is President. Running for and becoming President has raised Trump’s profile and therefore affected his businesses, regardless of who is running them.
However, the devil and the angels are in the details and Trump has maneuvered throughout his life being able to manipulate a detail here and a detail there. It is only fitting that this lying sack of s*$t, this the greatest shame America has become since Nixon or McCarthy, that which has eclipsed Reagan and the Iran/Contra scandals, etc, etc, etc, should be pilloried by his own legal mechanisms. In other words hoisted by his own petard. Hoist away.
I just came across a video of Isaac on his last visit to New York:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AUncGsoag0
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky,…
My limited bandwidth only let me view and hear a portion of your video.
Did the guy say anything about oligarchies, or the Kochs?
Not in this one. In this one, he is a bird, flap flap flap.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
PS: The dude is really one, Matthew Silver, and he has some other videos on youtube. He plays a maniac, but Isaac really is a maniac.
Noticed you offered no proof and left out Clinton and the 18 year tax write off scam…. How’s it feel to be self petarded? Besides the usual BS with no factual background. Dang foriegners never learn.
issac?
“Trump’s presidency is bad for business; his own.” – NBC News, Oct. 16, 2017
Trump’s decline in income and net worth since taking office would seem to undercut the emoluments case against him.
IMO that case was weak to begin with….I don’t see that bringing him down, or as a major legal threat…..but if there’s been no tangible benefit from the Trump presidency to the Trump businesses, the case seems even weaker.
Whether you like or dislike Trump, we have one law, and it applies equally to all of us.
Well, it doesn’t apply equally to all of us, I’m afraid. It may in theory but certainly not in practice.
JS lives in theory world.
They have this group of people that can follow six words and change that anytime.
Stop Enabling
Take Control
Make Change
They are called citizens.
Noticed you offered no proof and left out Clinton and the 18 year tax write off scam…. How’s it feel to be self petarded? Besides the usual BS with no factual background. Dang foriegners never learn.
True. Another way to characterize it is that the day glo bozo was hoisted on his own breathtaking incompetence; the presence of which I give thanks to daily, although it does cause me to pity those who couldn’t see it when the normal people did.
this is to the erudite and informative isaac
the day glo bozo was hoisted on his own breathtaking incompetence;
It’s grossly amusing that we get to hear from partisan Democrats about Trump’s ‘incompetence’. He spends 40 years running a business with a five digit corps of employees, prospers in three distinct lines of business, runs for office and makes short work of the Bush clan and miscellanous hyenas before scoring a TKO against the Clintons and their camarilla (who had the news media and the Republican’s Capitol Hill nexus in their corner). This from people who’d have cast a vote for Joseph Biden, a mediocre suburban lawyer whose executive experience is nil and who missed his true vocation as a real estate agent. This from people who actually did vote for Barack Obama, whose executive experience was limited to running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge into the ground, who quit practicing law after 3 years, and who took a salary from the University of Chicago for 12 years but never published one scholarly article – because he missed his true vocation as a local TV newscaster. Instead, he got to be on air talent for the machinations of one David Plouffe.
Boom chakalaka boom.
“Urban dictionary: the sound that is heard when someone makes an awesome slam dunk.”
What about your bankrupting marmalade porno King? Went to Fordham cause he had a C average. Daddy gave Penn a donation and voila he got in, He was the first person to graduate first in his class with no honors designations. Laughing out loud. Owes Putin more than he is worth. Same for the debt ridden son in law whose criminal pops gave a million bucks to Harvard. If it were not for da money these folks would not graduate SUNY and all be in da pen.
What about it? No soup for you.
Moreover, none of these Democratic leaders and Trump critics called for such challenges to the Clintons racking in hundreds of millions in person speaking fees or contributions to their foundation.
Empire Collapse, judicial system branch: Hell, your Honor, if he can get away with it, then by gawd, why can’t I?
Of course, I would be delighted if both Clintons and Trump were brought up on the emoluments clause. It is not a good way to run a government – no – mater – who – does -it.
I would be interested in Professor Turley’s opinion on a point he omitted which was in the article he linked to (written just after Trump won the 2016 election),
That doesn’t cover the gifts or the outlandish speaking fees the Clintons (and Obama and other ex. presidents have received) nor those Trump will get after 4 or 8 years, but it does deal -somewhat fairly- with the issue of a sitting president, A-N-Y sitting president, getting direct profit from and thus OBVIOUS influence by – foreign governments..
I suspect you will find that all or most of Trump’s businesses are corporations, in which he is a stock holder – possibly the largest one.
That is essentially the same as the arrangement you are demanding.
Are you saying Trump is involved in the day to day running of the affairs of his enterprises ?
I am pretty sure that not only did he separate himself, but his entire family split – i.e. those assisting him in government – such as Kushner are no longer part of the day to day operation of the businesses,
while those not part of his administration are running the businesses.
Shareholders, even major shareholders excercise control by electing the members of the board.
Not by managing the day to day operations.
Further, given a choice between a government of all lawyers and politicians, and one that has people who have accomplished things in the real world – I want more of the latter.
Why are we so concerned that Trump might profit from the renting of hotel rooms, when far too many politicians profit outright,
I would sugest that Trump’s business experience makes him more familiar with paying bribes than collecting them.
But money is free speech and while there is no direct access yet second hand access is completely legal.. so??????? How can what you say apply after all Soros himself directed and paid for the implementation of the first sentence Most of the hoi polloi use union PACs for that purpose. Others use ghost write a book or two after term of office and get paid off in non existent sales.
Money is not speech. Money is a facilitator of speech and government can not regulate speech by regulating the conditions for speech.
As an example govenrment can not say you can speak about whatever you want – but only between 3-4am in the shower, on tuesdays.
Government can not regulate speech by regulating money.
There are clearly good-faith arguments that such payments fall within the meaning of the language,
Always the professional courtesies extended. There are no good faith arguments advanced by lawfare artists. Doesn’t matter what sort of fancy endowed chair on which they plant their ass.
Turley wrote, “Moreover, none of these Democratic leaders and Trump critics called for such challenges to the Clintons racking in hundreds of millions in person speaking fees or contributions to their foundation.”
Is The Trump Organization a charitable foundation? Is there a clear way legally to show that contributions to a charitable foundation are actually bribes? If so, then how would campaign contributions be exempted from the bribery statute while charitable contributions were admissible as evidence of bribery?
Is Turley playing the false equivalency card again?
She thinks the Clinton Foundation is a charity.
LMAO.
Next you will say da Trump Foundation is a charity. Donny Junior da animal killer stripped it. All crooks T rumps Kushners. So ya think Clinton is one. Does not make the T RUMP KUSHNER INC any less crooked. JAVANKA brought two corrupt families together.
What about it? No soup for you.
Think that is da case. If Bill Clinton ran a hotel next to the White House where prostitutes from all walks of life hung out he would have been impeached 10 Times over.
Depends on who was in charge of congress. Same for conviction and all of it would mean nothing more than no more blind trust. a pardon, and a job as Presidential adviser.
What false equivalence ?
The issue is simple – and the same.
Is renting a hotel room from Trump – trading for a hotel room ? Or is it trading for influence – or in the case of the emoluments clause, trading to receive a government position.
Any legitimate exchange can be a false front for an illegitimate exchange, but it is far harder to do so in exchange for goods and services than it is for contributions – such as charities.
As to the rest of your argument, all you point out is that there is really no consequential difference between nearly all forms of fre exchange.
You also raise the most critical facet – without taking note that you have.
non-government actors should be free to do as they please with what is theirs – including their money.
Free to exchange it, free to contribute it.
Any crime rests with government actors trading the power of government for some benefit from a private party.
The “crime” is the use of personal govenrment power to provide preferential treatment.
Therefore a backchannel from the Clinton Foundation to the Secretary of state is by definition criminal.
Clearly the secretary of state was giving preferential treatment to CF donors.
It is irrelevant whether she personally profited.
If you can find evidence that Trump is giving preferential treatment to those who stay in his hotels, then you have a similar claim.
Regardless the object of the law, is to ensure equality before the law.
Joe Biden goes to China as an emmisary of Obama
Takes his son who is not part of the official group
China and Biden discuss items dealing with trade and money transactions.
Under law (foreigncorruption) Biden cannot take a penny
Under law anyone in Congress can use the info to make mucho moola
But his son engineered a side deal worth one point five billion. and his completely exempt.
Now let’s suppose Biden the Clown with no experience whatsoever runs for President
Sonny boys corporation donates hundred million dollars
After all money IS free speech and John Boy is excluded from the foreign trade corruption act and there is no such thing for congress (passed under Obama and gutted two months later)
Where was the NY Times and Washington Post? Sitting AF2 with John Boy
MA – you forgot all the hanky panky with Boy Biden in Ukraine.
“Finds the outcome he wants, then contorts the law and reality to support his decision”. – critic of Judge Messitte.
Don’t know enough about his history/ overall reputation on the bench to verify or dispute that observation.
” Seems senile” was another observation about the judge, but if that were obvious he’d probably be removed from the bench.
I hope.
My wife clerked for a federal judge a few decades ago.
He had been an excellent jurist at one time. By the time she became his clerk that was long past.
He was not senile, but it matter little, he did not give a damn how cases were decided, just that he did not come to the attention of the public or the rest of the court.
And there are plenty that are senile.
In New York, it was incorporated into the state Constitution in 1846 that all judges must retire at the end of the calendar year in which they reach their 70th birthday. There has been an amendment since which allows a retired justice to hear cases for three additional terms of two years each, subject to (I believe) the Administrative Board of the Courts. After you hit 76, you’re out. A variant of this system would be a good idea for the federal courts. Thurgood Marshall was, by his own admission, a triumph of the taxidermist’s art. Mandatory retirement at 76 would have spared us 7 year’s worth of his clerks’ jurisprudence.
Did Prof. Turley raise the issue of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife earning $600,000 at Heritage, information that Thomas failed to report?
I think they have a rule that states that it’s always different when they do it.
(Just wait till you here them start in to squawking over that one).
I do not think Thomas was obligated to report his wifes payments.
I do not think McCabe was obligated to report is wife’s either.
But both Thomas and McCabe should have recused themselves from cases that their wives benefactors were parties to.
Clinton was the target of an FBI investigation – McCabe was obligated to recuse.
If Heritage is an actual plantif in a SCOTUS case, Thomas will have to recuse.
Being an Amicus is not sufficient – that is too attenuated.
In theory world, how would the public or the attorneys know that Thomas should recuse himself if there’s no record of the payment?
They might not. So ?
You seem to think you are entitled to know everything about everyone.
Your not.
Regardless, you are not entitled to vet the judge that hears your case for conflicts.
The obigation to recuse is an ethical obligation of HIS, not a right of yours.
Incorrect. Recusal is of course an ethical obligation in certain circumstances, but recusal can also be compelled, if necessary, by a litigant. It can even be compelled at the behest of an attorney.
Have you ever asked anyone to Recuse themselves ?
I have.
You can file a motion.
They can deny it.
You can appeal – you probably wont get heard.
You can appeal to the judicial ethics board.
That is your best bet – Because it is an ETHICAL issue, not a legal one.
I have on one occasion. On at least two other occasions over the years a judge has offered to recuse himself based upon his personal acquaintance with an opposing party. I also represented another attorney recently and convinced an appellate court to reverse a contempt order and have the case reassigned to a new judge on remand.
I don’t know what jurisdiction you practice in, but here in Florida recusal is governed by statute, the Canon of Judicial Ethics and the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. It can be complicated, but there is a legal right to compel recusal under circumstances in which a reasonable person would fear that he might not receive a fair and impartial trial. In addition, a judge has an affirmative obligation to disclose information that could be disqualifying. In sum, the issue is both legal and ethical. I’m sure there are a variety of substantive and procedural variations among the several states.
It goes without saying that a lawyer who makes his living in a courtroom will not seek to disqualify a judge unless he can make out a pretty clear case of bias or prejudice.
I would greatly appreciate references to the information on recusal you cite.
you can email me at jbsay at thebrokenwindow dot net
I am not in FL so the law is of less interest to me.
But ethical standards for judges are near universal.
I would however take note of your last remark.
I have never seen a lawyer in my country seek recusal on any basis in over 40 years.
I have RARELY seen judges recuse themselves, typically on their own.
Pretty much whenever that happens that is the judge you do not want to get rid of.
They typically do so over relatively small conflicts.
More MadCow talking points.
She was paid a salary by an NGO she worked for, twenty years ago.
But did she fail to report it? And when did it take place. And did it take place outside the country? Depending wives may or may not be involved. Sons and daughters etc are not involved iand inside the USA the law doesn’t apply.
Some of your points are relevant. But the most important one is that Heritage is not a party in any matter before Thomas. They are at most an Amicus.
Clinton was a target of an investigation that McCabe led.
https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/979077997495029760
So the most litigious President in history is rapidly becoming the most litigated against President in history. Who was it who said something the other day about karma always winning?
Karma is a much, much better idea than hell.
A man of great intellect whom I admired and who studied both history and human behavior once told me that the two
darkest [i.e. evil] places on earth are: 1. Moscow, and 2. Washington, DC. I think about that a lot these days.
Intriguing. Who was it who said just a couple of years ago that, “The system is rigged; She never should’ve been allowed to run; Crooked H, lock her up?”
And then there was that silly pop tune about Karma Chamelions. Maybe that’s how karma works. Some deserving chamelion gets stuck in a rut mindlessly spinning its toes through the same old sorry song and dance routine ad nauseam until that reptile’s complexion changes to match the mud that it’s been slinging the whole way through. Or not.
Maybe Trump’s defense is forever doomed to sound just like, “She started it! It’s so unfair!”
Trump’s defenses (and Hillary’s) are relevant only to the extent they are persuasive.
What matters are facts, logic, reason – evidence.
What matters is the rule of law.
What matters is the consistent application of the same rules and law in the same way regardless of who we are more favorably disposed towards.
Many of Trump’s flaws are reflections of the fact that many on the right have become tired of the left using the rights on moral standards against them.
Trump is a mysoginist “pussy grabber” – true. That makes him indistinguishable from myriads of democrats. Previously that was a fatal to a republican, but a speedbump to a democrat.
Trump was elected because too many republicans said “no more” are we going to allow the left to turn our own moral standards against us.
I am not personally sure that is a wise choice – but it is the inevitable response to the tactics of the left.
“Trump is a mysoginist “pussy grabber” – true.”
Is Trump truly a misogynist or is he a lover of many women? Maybe we should call him a ‘tactile gynophile’ or maybe he thinks of himself as a Don Juan.
Today the term misogynist is used so broadly as to be confusing. Miso or misein is the Greek root of hate, but I don’t think there is any hate involved. Would we attribute to misandry the same characteristics as we do to misogyny?
[My wife considers Trump to be a connoisseur of fine women. 😀 ]
Trump’s conduct towards women is offensive to many women, offensive to me, and involves atleast small violations of rights and commitments.
I am not going to debate the meaning of misogynist.
While I have lambasted the left for word mangling.
Often semantic debates can be avoided, by reframing.
The left as an example froths over Rascism and various other isms.
These are real, and continue to exist.
But they are much diminished over my lifetime.
and today fail to justify remedies, or provide explanations for outcomes.
Racism may be factor effecting young black men.
But the failure to get an education, and to take steps toward actual adulthood and adult relationships is much more harmful.
Trump’s conduct towards women is offensive.
But it is towards the shallow end of the pool.
Not near that of Weinstein or Bill Clinton.
“Trump’s conduct towards women is offensive to many women”
I find a lot of conduct offensive, so what!
“I am not going to debate the meaning of misogynist.”
I tried not to leave the door open to such a debate by openly stating that in my opinion, the word was overused and provided the word misandry and the Greek root. Eventually, all words can lose their meaning. “The stink of a rose”.(Shakespeare)
“Trump’s conduct towards women is offensive.
But it is towards the shallow end of the pool.”
I cannot think of any man I have known or woman for that matter that has not been offensive at one time or another.
We are not for the most part at odds.
“I find a lot of conduct offensive, so what!”
That is not a “so what”.
When you are offended, there are things you can do, and things you can not.
You may not use force, merely because you are offended.
The use of the power of government is the use of force.
You may speak out when you are offended.
You may make your own choices with respect to your own actions.
I did not vote for Trump.
Regardless, he was still elected.
I had (and continue to have) my opportunity to express my “offense”
But I am limited to my words, and my own legitimate actions.
The left beleives their offense – which I sometimes share, is a justification for making law – for the use of force. That is false. It is also false in the less frequent case when the right seeks to do the same.
“That is not a “so what”.”
It certainly is when everyone is offensive at one time or another. Offensive conduct –> offended. Force doesn’t enter the equation until you put it there.
Force is a last resort.
“I did not vote for Trump.”
I did. Any other vote was a vote for Hillary. My only regret is that I didn’t campaign for him. He has done well and I don’t think any other candidate could have done as well.
Expressing offense to Trump’s conduct was appropriate at the ballot box. Then again what conduct are we talking about? Locker room talk, possible consensual sex, and touching one time stopping after hearing a no. That seems better than serial rape or the wife that demeans women that were raped who so happens to be as stupid as sh-t when it comes to national and international affairs.
Allan, I am not looking to get into a protracted debate about subjective preferences.
I am free to be offended by whatever I wish.
As are you
As is Linda – even though she is incredibly badly informed and hates ALEC because they agree with her on many issues ?
I do not wish to debate the details of why some of Trump’s conduct offended me.
That is my legitimate subjective choice.
I expressed it at the ballot box.
Trump was elected. I am not happy about that – but I am happy that Hillary was not.
But again subjective preferences.
My offence and its reasons are not past, but aside from speaking out, I have nothing more to legitimately do until 2020.
In the meantime. Trump is president. He has not proven to be an ogre. The world as we know it has not come to an end. He has F’d up some things. But he has done well in others. Some I expected, some I did not. He continues to scare me – though not as much as Hillary.
But again this is not a debate. I am entitled to hold different views on Trump’s conduct than you.
We do not have to agree.
Nor am I personally that interested in who is president.
I am far more concerned about what powers government has.
I supported the Tax cut. but it REQUIRES spending cuts.
The recent budget is a larded up peice of garbage. Both parties should be embarrassed.
John, I am not concerned about personal offensiveness. I want a good job done. If my doctor is rude but can keep me alive when other doctors are nice I want the rude doctor. I am scared of all government but recognize that even a free market cannot survive in this world without some government. I am not happy with the way the Constitution was written, but I would have been happy to sign it because it was better with it than without.
We are in agreement.
I am libertarian – not anarchist, not anarcho-capitalist.
Further I can accept that as things are I am not getting what I want.
But I can push things in that direction.
When the Clinton Foundation money was being raised and speaking fees earned, was Pres. Hillary Clinton, in office?
For the reading and ideology impaired:
The clause is not limited to Presidents:
LInda, at least pretend once in awhile that you want the constitution to apply to everyone taking the oath of office.
It’s a good thing I resisted the impulse to agree with Linda. Thanks, Chief.
Billy Clinton has not held office since 2000. Could it apply to him? Turley said Clintons.
Your welcome L4D. All she had to do was actually read JT’s post to know that. Good call.
That’s not why I hesitated, Olly. I was worried that maybe the constant “what aboutism” has operantly conditioned every last blawg-hound into the same game. If not even Linda can resist mentioning Hillary, what chance do the rest of us have?
L4D,…
Feel free to bring up Hillary anytime you want.😉
See my earlier reference to Judge Thomas’ wife.
Your complaint about Ginni Thomas is that she had a workaday job. It’s an unserious complaint.
I did … No facts no sources…. clueless. Airhead came to mind. .
Ginni does seem like an airhead. Clarence Thomas’ years and years and years of no oral comment, while on the bench, provided strong evidence of air between his ears, too.
Lazy conservatives, unwilling to do internet searches shouldn’t compel others to action. The Thomas payment reference is not obscure.
The problem with your Thomas reference is that you seem to think that 6 degrees of separation is sufficient to accuse those purportedly on the right of bribery and corruption, but you can not see it once removed with those on the left.
When you can hold the left to the same standards as you hold the right – you will be far more credible.
My wife is a criminal defense attorney, She argues in front of appeals courts regularly. Oral arguments are rarely of any consequence. Decisions are not made in that environment and little is accomplished besides public preening.
Thomas’s past silence has no meaning. The oppinions he has written do.
I often do not agree with him.
But some of his disents, are some of the best constitutional argument in a century.
He is by far the most independent thinker on the court whether you agree with him or not.
And unlike you he is actually able to think for himself. I give people alot of credit for that even if they are wrong.
Assuming he writes them. Authorship would be clear if he spoke and his speaking matched his writing.
I am sure Thomas is assisted by his clerks – who he vetts and hires.
Thomas graduated from Holy Cross college cum laude in English Literature, and Yale Law
I beleive he can write.
You are entitled to your own view, but you are not entitled to know just because you want to.
And based on the evidence we do have, your view is unsupported.
I am suspicious that Thomas is not an orator.
That is not a job requirement for Supreme Court Justices.
Someone who is so wrong about the facts on so many things should not be calling others lazy for failing to check their facts.
No one would believe her. or it as the case maybe. Ad Machina
She was Secretary of State. There were very large amounts of money that went to the Clinton Foundation during her time as Sec. of State; those large contributors had greater access to her, “pay for play”.
Tom,
Perhaps Linda got hung up on the word Trust and instinctively knew this clause didn’t apply to the Clintons.
Olly,..
It was announced earlier this year that the DOJ was investigating the Clinton Foundation.
As far as the pay-to-play aspect while Hillary was Sec. of State, they’d probably have a high hurdle proving quid pro quo arraingments, but the scope of the investigation may be broader than the contributions the foundation got while she was Sec. of State.
TN – just read this on (gasp! RT.com)
“The Department of Justice inspector general has announced it will investigate the FBI over the use of a FISA court order to spy on a Trump campaign adviser, after the House Republican memo claimed the process was abused.
The review will determine whether the FBI followed proper procedure when it obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant “relating to a certain US person,” DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz said in a statement on Wednesday.”
…………………….
“The OIG will also “review information that was known to the DOJ and the FBI… from or about an alleged FBI confidential source” and review the DOJ and FBI’s “relationship and communications with the alleged source as they relate to the FISC applications.”
Horowitz’s latest announcement comes amid his ongoing investigation into the FBI and Justice Department’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was serving as Secretary of State.
The DOJ watchdog is investigating why former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe took three weeks to act on a request to examine Clinton’s emails, which were discovered during the 2016 US presidential election. That report is expected to be released in the coming weeks.”
https://www.rt.com/usa/422634-doj-oig-fbi-fisa/
Autumn,
WaPo, CNN, and
CBS News also mentioned that IG Horowitz would be looking into FISA warrants.
He doesn’t have the resourses of the Mueller team, but he’ll work with what he has.
I think there’s a 50/50 chance that there will be another Special Counsel appointed in the near future.
DC may have to import lawyers with all of the investigations going on.
There are also texts indicating that the Obama whitehouse participated in selling the Steele Dossier to not only FBI/DOJ but also CIA/NSA/….
I do not care about quid pro qui. We have the standards wrong as well as the target.
There is nothing actually unethical about offering a bribe. Businesses buy what they need. That is how they world.
The moral issue is excercising delegated government power preferentially.
Why you chose to do so is merely motive, the crime is the disparate use of govenrment power.
The state department provided preferential treatment – mostly expedited back channel service to CF contributors. That is the crime.
JS – exactly re “The state department provided preferential treatment – mostly expedited back channel service to CF contributors. That is the crime.”
Also where were the “donations” spent? No records – Aussie and Kiwi taxpayers are ticked off by the “donations” made by their leaders.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-17/fbi-investigating-millions-mishandled-dollars-funneled-australian-govt-clinton
“DOJ investigating the Clinton Foundation”? Look how that worked out for them last time!
Nash,
While I favor stronger regulation of foundations, your party opposes it… wait… I misspoke, it’s not your party…wait…it is indeed the party of conservatives and Russians.
Rhetorically, the same rules that prevent Trump from receiving huge fees from speeches while in office, prevented Hillary from accepting them while she was in the Senate and Sec. of State?
Check out my earlier reference to the wife of Judge Thomas. The Kochs as funders of Heritage could have said we are too principled to employ a sitting Justice’s wife at more than one-half a $ million and, Thomas could have been principled enough o report it.
All personal opinion with out one fact source whatever something and that goes for your earlier refereences which also were alledged, purportedly or reportedl all meaning without proof. Don’t just love having to eat your own…..
I’m of the opinion that JS checked and knows Mrs. Thomas was paid $600,000+ by Heritage while Clarence was Justice and that JS is aware Justice Thomas did not report the payment until publicity forced its reporting.
So when you do not know something – you just make it up ?
I have not “checked” anything.
You have not made an allegation that indicates a conflict.
Until Heritage is a plantiff or defendant in a supreme court case there is no conflict.
Clinton was a target of an FBI investigation – McCabe was obligated to recuse.
She was paid a salary when she worked in a PR job at Heritage twenty years ago. You haven’t a clue what ‘reporting’ requirements are for federal judges.
I favor ZERO regulation of “foundations”.
Government has no business deciding what anyone may do with what is theirs.
If Russian Oligarchs wish to give the Clinton’s 100’s of millions – that is fine by me.
The CRIME is that Clinton and the state department gave preverential treatment to CF donors.
That is solidly established, there was a clear back channel from CF to the upper reaches of State.
There was a not through official channels means to get the state departments ear.
That is the problem.
Find the same thing with Trump and you can impeach him.
But you have absolutely zero business forcing others to do with what is theirs – what you want them too.
The left has this ludicrous notion that they can end government corruption by playing an endless game of whack-a-mole with private actors who seek to benefit from preferential treatment.
The entire structure of the free market is designed to exchange value for value.
To the market there is no difference moral or otherwise between buying a trackload of coal, and buying a government permit.
It is those in government who face the actual moral issue. It is not moral to trade government power for anything. The rule of law requires that to the extent possible the law is administered equally and blind of those it is being applied to.
“Rhetorically”, those are some conversations Linda has with herself, aren’t they?
Critical thinking is still not your forte.
When Heritage is a PLAINTIFF in a SCOTUS case Thomas must recuse himself.
Clinton was a target of an FBI investigation – that is why McCabe had to recuse.
If Clinton had merely been an interested party there would have been no ethics issue.
Demonstrate that Heritage or the Koch’s are routinely able to contact Thomas’s clerks and receive expedited treatment, and you will have what was practically openly occuring at State.
You seem to think that the wealth of those you loath is corrosive – no matter what they do with it, while that of those you adore smells of lavender straight from the sewage plant.
Those who contributed to CF received expedited treatment by State.
That is the corruption.
Demonstrate some similar misuse of govenrment power, as a consequence of staying at a Trump hotel or Thomas’s wife employment, and we have something to discuss.
BTW you can favor whatever you want.
But you can not use force – directly or through proxy, merely because you favor it.
A majority favors a candidate, votes for that candidate- referred to as democracy or as the Limbaugh’s ditto heads chime in, a “republic”, which is representative democracy.
JS’s mantra- minority rights but, rejection of majority rule.
Typical libertarian, uses “leave me the hell alone” as a philosophy.
We do not live in a democracy. Read the constitution.
A democracy is a poor form of government – almost as bad as socialism.
We live in a constitutional republic – that is the form of government that best protects the rights of minorities.
Yes, exactly like our founders I reject minority rule – it is an abysmally bad Idea.
Our republican form of government deliberately and properly requires super-majorities to do anything.
When you have a president and two legislative bodies all of which are deliberately elected in different ways from different groups of people, each of which has its own rules, and you require atleast majorities in all 3 and either unanimity of all three of 2/3 majorities of two – that is by definition a supermajority form of government.
Nor is a supermajority sufficient – because any law can be nullified if a majority of the 3rd branch of government determines that it infringes on individual rights.
Get a Clue – individual natural rights come FIRST.
The view of a majority or even a super majority does not Trump rights.
And even where the acts of government do not infringe on our rights – they still must have supermajority support.
That is how our government was designed.
Idiot progressives, such as yourself have spent 250 years tearing that down trying to make this country into a democracy – we are not. Democracies are horrible, they are repressive, They are often genocidal.
They do not protect rights or minorities. They are evil.
Even John Stuart Mill noted that monarchies were less oppressive that democracy.
There is no limit to the extent ones neighbor will meddle in your life if given the power to.
Libertarianism is not about “leave me the hell alone”.
It is about “leave you the hell alone”.
Libertarians fight for EVERYONE’s freedom to do as they please so longs as they do not use violence to infringe on the rights of others, keep the commitments they make to others and make whole any actual harm they do to others.
That is all that government can morally require of you.
Government is force, and you may not use force against others because you want to.
You may not do so – because you think you acting in the interests of others.
Most of us understand there are very few justifications for the use of force.
You progressive wing nuts seem in a rush to take guns away from everyone – that implicitly recognizes that the use of force is rarely justified.
The fact that government is the use of force – does not change that the use of force must be justified, and that justification is rare and not easily met.
Further you remain entirely free to do every single other thing you wish to do.
You can accomplish every single part of the progressive agenda that you seek in a libertarian minarchy.
Libertarianism does not preclude communism or socialism.
It merely limits when force can be used.
You can form whatever voluntary groups you wish and within those have whatever structure or rules your choose. Nothing precludes you from living in pure communism, or socialism or whatever structure you wish.
But you may not force people to join you, you must persuade, and you can not keep them against their will.
If your ideas and policies are so great – they should not require force, you should be able to get people to agree to them voluntarily, and you should be able to maintain that agreement because they work.
That is how actually free societies work.
The “philosophy” of libertarianism is free will incompatibilism.
There are 3 other primary philosophical possibilities.
I do not think you will like those at all.
Free will incompatablism aka libertarianism, is THE philosophy of the entire western world.
While we deviate from it – often greatly, it is still the actual core of the western world
Now but the type of foundation was raising money for charity and it was used to finance a lavish lifestyle with about 5% goiing by reports going to charity AND at last word theyshut the foundation down and transferred the money to a bank in Canada.
Then the whole thing got the cover up treatment but now is back on the chopping block again…. so most of your comments are nullifed, moot or non applicable
Sec. State Clinton was, and it is already established that contributions to the Clinton foundation resulted in preferential treatment by the State Department.
It is not giving money to the Clinton Foundation, or to Trump Hotels that is the crime.
It is getting preferential treatment that is.
The entire issue of bribery in all forms is not paying for a service.
It is excercising personally vested government power preferentially.
“already established”? By whom? Sean Hannity? No Clinton has ever taken one penny from the Foundation.
‘Fraid that’s Chelsea’s day job.
Take a look at the travel expenditures. Look at how shortly after she lost her bid for the Presidency how many employees were fired.
Then take a look at the influence peddling. (Start reading the emails)
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-clinton-foundation-is-dead-but-the-case-against-hillary-isnt/
The Clinton Foundation Is Dead — But The Case Against Hillary Isn’t
While everyone’s been gearing up for President Trump’s inauguration, the Clinton Foundation made a major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: For all intents and purposes, it’s closing its doors.
In a tax filing, the Clinton Global Initiative said it’s firing 22 staffers and closing its offices, a result of the gusher of foreign money that kept the foundation afloat suddenly drying up after Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency.
It proves what we’ve said all along: The Clinton Foundation was little more than an influence-peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons, and had little if anything to do with “charity,” either overseas or in the U.S. That sound you heard starting in November was checkbooks being snapped shut in offices around the world by people who had hoped their donations would buy access to the next president of the United States.
And why not? There was a strong precedent for it in Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. While serving as the nation’s top diplomat, the Clinton Foundation took money from at least seven foreign governments — a clear breach of Clinton’s pledge on taking office that there would be total separation between her duties and the foundation.
Is there a smoking gun? Well, of the 154 private interests who either officially met or had scheduled phone talks with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state, at least 85 were donors to the Clinton Foundation or one of its programs.
In November, we asked the question: “Is The Clinton Foundation Doomed?” The answer is yes.
All the way back in May, we outlined how the Clinton Foundation had taken in $100 million from a collection of Gulf sheikhs and billionaires, along with millions from private businesses, who expected — and received — special access to the State Department’s top official, Hillary.
In his 2015 book “Clinton Cash,” author Peter Schweizer showed how during Hillary’s years in government “the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions (either as private citizens or government officials) with foreign governments, corporations and private financiers.” He called the sums going to the Clintons “staggering.”
Using the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch in August obtained emails (that had been hidden from investigators) showing that Clinton’s top State Department aide, Huma Abedin, had given “special expedited access to the secretary of state” for those who gave $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Many of those were facilitated by a former executive of the foundation, Doug Band, who headed Teneo, a shell company that managed the Clintons’ affairs.
As part of this elaborate arrangement, Abedin was given special permission to work for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and Teneo — another very clear conflict of interest.
As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said at the time, “These new emails confirm that Hillary Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors.”
The seedy saga doesn’t end there. Indeed, there are so many facets to it, some may never be known. But there is still at least one and possibly four active federal investigations into the Clintons’ supposed charity.
Americans aren’t willing to forgive and forget. Earlier this month, the IBD/TIPP Poll asked Americans whether they would like President Obama to pardon Hillary for any crimes she may have committed as secretary of state, including the illegal use of an unsecured homebrew email server. Of those queried, 57% said no. So if public sentiment is any guide, the Clintons’ problems may just be beginning.
Writing in the Washington Post in August of 2016, Charles Krauthammer pretty much summed up the whole tawdry tale: “The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc.,” he wrote. “Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons’ lifestyle (offices, travel accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton Restoration.”
Except, now there is no Clinton Restoration. So there’s no reason for any donors to give money to the foundation. It lays bare the fiction of a massive “charitable organization,” and shows it for what it was: a scam to sell for cash the waning influence of the Democrats’ pre-eminent power couple. As far as the charity landscape goes, the Clinton Global Initiative won’t be missed.
“already established”
All of the facts necescary to investigate, charge and prosecute Clinton, are in Comey’s july 2016 statement. Comey excercises “prosecutorial discretion” – in recomending not to prosecute.
That is a strong asertion that what is necescary to prosecute exists (Comey actually spelled out all of the facts, item by item), but that for reasons NOT having to do with the evidence or the crime he has chosen not to prosecute.
I would suggest reviewing Comey’s statement.
I initially hear it live and until nearly the last word I though “oh my god, he is going to charge Clinton!”.
Regardless the facts are all listed. Then you can good 18 cfr 793(f) and you will find that the facts match every element of the crime.
The crime is “already established”.
With respect to the Clinton Foundation:
The Clinton’s have taken millions from CF in perks, and salaries. That too is not only established, but admitted.
But that is not the critical issue. Demonstrating how the Clinton’s personally benefited would be nice but it is not necescary.
All that is necescary is demonstrating that CF contributors got special treatment by the State department.
It is improper and illegal and unconstitutional to provide special treatment.
That CF contributors got special treatment is proven by many many many state department emails.
The Haitians still think the donations for them helped fund Chelsea’s extravagant wedding. Is this true? No idea. All I know is that Klaus Eberwein, a former Haitian official who was to testify suicided himself beforehand. The deaths keep racking up!
What’s racking up is the Russian people’s money spent on propaganda in support of U.S.conservative politicians and issues.
At its core, your argument is that the wrong person won, therefore something evil must have occured.
That is fallacy. Trump won because Clinton was a worse candidate, and because progressives have alienated half the electorate.
“What’s racking up is the Russian people’s money spent on propaganda in support of U.S.conservative politicians and issues.”
The actual analysis of the spending is that:
It was small
it was mostly after the election.
it was mostly issue oriented not candidate oriented,
it was directed towards issues and candidates of both the left and the right.
and finally it was ineffective.
If it had been large, during the election, advocating for a single candidate and effective,
it still would not be an issue.
In the end it was speech – specifically it was persuasive speech. Persuasion is not force,
If it changed people’s minds – it did so without using force.
The only acceptable response to speech you do not like is more speech – not enforce silence.
Returning to the real world, persuasive speech in general, and particularly in elections, is extremely difficult, expensive, and ineffective. The Clinton campaign alone spend nearly $30/vote – except that money was really concentrated on swing states – where it was more like several hundred dollars/vote.
Trump spent just over 1/2 what Clinton spent. The Russians spent something like 1/60000 of what Trump spent. You really think that changed the outcome of the election ?
I would further note that Clinton got help from Ukraine – relatively directly, as well as Russia indirectly.
That does not seem to bother you.
The missuse of the money of the Russian people by their government at is something they should take up with their government. It is not properly your business, nor that of the US government.
BTW the US government spends money on propganda in Russia and elsewhere.