Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

Dude is a socialist - plain and simple.

-------------------------

James Lindon, Ph.D. Patent Attorney
Lindon & Lindon, LLC
Cleveland, Ohio
Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Pharmacy Law, Litigation
[this is not legal advice - provided for discussion only]
Intellectual Property for the Individual and Small Business: Identify, Protect, Enforce, Defend.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
http://www.LindonLaw.com

I think what it comes down to is a very complex system, with so many bits and pieces that go into the problem, we can`t point to one or several.

Any society comes together under a set of basic ideas. I`m thinking, say, of a business or a community association. Certain people have a common vision....goal, they generally have a similar outlook on life, and they share common assumptions about the basics of life.

Ordinarily, the society begins, then exists for some period of time. Later in the life of that society, what is it that keeps it going? Isn`t it the express statement of the original assumptions?

For America, those basic assumptions are held in the Declaration of Independence. They`re further backed up, then set out as "law" or rules in the Constitution.

Ultimately, the people in the society either agree or disagree with the principle of "following the rules." In other words, the country at large has to agree that everyone will ultimately follow and adhere to the rules of the Constitution.

But what happens in any society, including a nation, when a major portion of the "members" (citizens) don`t want to follow the original charter anymore?

We could see the society dissolve, as one option. We could see many member leaving, and I would argue that the money leaving the financial markets is a demonstration of that. We also could see the society split into separate off-shoots.

Look at the Protestant movement in relation to the Catholic church. Societies only have a finite set of options when the members disagree at the most basic level.

What if you`re in a crowd led by someone chosen to be that leader, and the leader decides to walk off a cliff. Say, like Jim Jones, the cult leader. Do you say that "He`s our leader," therefore you too will walk off the cliff?

Arbitrarily setting the authority of a President above rational self-interest and the organization of the nation makes no sense. It`s one thing to have a partial disagreement, say along the lines of whether to invest money in education or infrastructure.

But what we have today is a disagreement at the root level of the core foundation of the United States. It isn`t that Mr. Obama isn`t "my" president, it`s the the philosophic principles Mr. Obama wants to set in place are 180-degrees from the agreement that constitutes the formation of the country itself.

I vote we all move to Australia .....


-------------------------

M Hall
Website Critique Community
International Society of Curmudgeons

Yup, that`s the billion-dollar question. At this point, although "everyone" seems to agree that a third political party isn`t a viable option, that`s only because "in the past" it`s never worked.

I`m not so sure I agree with that assumption anymore, particularly in such a volatile period of history. In both banking and corporate business, what used to be absolutely true for years and years, no longer is true.

For today, I think a third party would be a problem. But in a year, I wonder if that`ll still be true. So I`m not discounting a third party, perhaps the Conservative party, as quickly as all that.

I`m not certain that the founding fathers should be put on a pedestal in terms of how the nation is to be run. The US isn`t the same as it was two hundred years ago. The enlightenment was the spark of the Constitution, and it was one of the best movements to come out of western thinking. However, all progress didn`t stop there. I think the US is following a natural evolution. The Great Depression was the big catalyst in the shift to the way the US is now from the way it was. FDR came in with a New Deal and we`ve been trending towards socialism ever since. The Great Depression scared us away from laissez-faire economics, naturally, since such policies helped cause it. The same thing is happening now. The government loosened restrictions, and the economy went down the toilet accordingly. It was drastic liberalism that saved us from the first depression. I imagine Obama will act similarly. If the US was still operating on 18th century logic, we`d be in a lot more trouble than we are. The founding fathers envisioned a living Constitution, and, it`s a good thing the Constitution is living, or we`d be hopeless.

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.

For what it`s worth, I`m studying the subject more. I`d hate to find out I`m wrong later. I`m not sure there`s a way to know which philosophy is right. The world is changing too fast. Both sides have good points. You can`t stand still in an ever changing world, or it`ll pass you by. In that, liberal flexibility is a virtue. However, conservative responsibility is definitely a virtue. Money doesn`t grow on trees. It`s bad policy to spend money you don`t have. In this regard, I agree with conservatives. In that regard I am a conservative. I avoid debt whenever I reasonably can. I wish the government would do the same. On the other hand, I`m happy to see the government stepping in to govern when society goes awry, as it often will. If they could limit the expansion to expansion we could afford, we`d be perfect. I think the ideal balance is the largest government money can buy, but without saddling yourself with trillions in debt. Business managers can`t govern themselves, and the government can`t manage money.

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.

Matt,
One of the basic dividing lines between conservatives and liberals is the argument over principles. Does a principle remain the same forever, or does it change relative to changing times.

From that argument we have the strict interpretation of the Constitution, for conservatives, versus the "living document" interpretation of liberals.

Most of the economic policies and changes, as well as other major changes to the nation have no direct bearing on the vision of America the founding fathers had in mind. There are no Constitutional provisions for a national bank, the Federal Reserve, and so forth.

The key was that government should be limited in power, restricted in function, and held accountable to the people of the country. Conservatives argue that almost all our current problems are due to government intervention and over-expansion.

To that extent, liberals say that government "must" expand, due to the changing circumstances of poverty, economics, and so forth.

Mr. Obama would like to remove restrictions to government authority, and liberals argue that we "have to do that" because of modern times and changing world economics.

I totally disagree, as do most conservatives. And because there`s no reasonable way to compromise between the two positions, we`ll probably see a complete breakdown in the overall system.