5 ms·

The problem is that when you create an international coalition powerful enough to control capital and to go against its logic, you've built a communism. Under t

• mhh__ 6y ago
  Why? If I organise enough people to vote to end subsidies like those featured in the article, I have created communism? What is practised in the west isn't even along a socialism-capitalism axis, it's just corruption. That is a problem in any society held together by words.
  • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Why is corruption a problem specifically in a society held together by words? In what kind of society wouldn't it be a problem?
    • mhh__ 6y ago
      The remark was mostly to point out that we can and should aim for better, but we don't. I'm a bit drunk so excuse any poor oracy
• Spooky23 6y ago
  No, you build communism when you transfer the asset to the people or the state. The supremacy of the sovereign over commerce has nothing at all to do with communism. Under US law, the Congress has nearly unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce, which by modern standards can be applied to almost all commercial activity. US policy tuned this down considerably from the 1960s onward. You’ll find that if you actually read about what some of the illustrious founders thought about regulatory authority, the average modern conservative in particular would be clutching their pearls. Hell, George Washington mustered a small army to collect (ie seize) excise taxes from hillbillies in Western Pennsylvania!
  • DetroitThrow 6y ago
    >Under US law, the Congress has nearly unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce As intended: Jefferson chose the term "pursuit of happiness" rather than "estate" (unlike Locke's earlier formulation) in the declaration of independence because all of the founding fathers viewed commerce and property as a function or construct of society, rather than a natural right in itself.
    • gumby 6y ago
      And because the word “happiness” at the time meant something more like felicity or properness, not pleasure or “near joy” as it does today.
      • DetroitThrow 6y ago
        Yes! There is even further context to break down about what we originally formulated our natural rights to address; it's something I think all American's interested in their rights should read into.
    • IncRnd 6y ago
      all of the founding fathers viewed commerce and property as a function or construct of society, rather than a natural right in itself Your interpretation goes against the Founder's stated beliefs. The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management. ~ Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816 In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. ... Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. ~ James Madison, Essay on Property Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals. ~ James Madison, Federalist 54 the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate ... is the first object of government ~ James Madison, Federalist 10 And, if we read Locke's own words: The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. ~ https://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/john-locke/