CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[dblack]

We need to raise awareness that, all too often, regulations that purport to control businesses, actually control customers. Likewise, laws that claim to regulate employers on behalf employees, all too often, regulate employees on behalf of employers.

Minimum wage is a great example. Supporters operate under the delusion that minimum wage laws force employers to pay people more money. But on examination, they don't actually do that. They simply prevent them from hiring people to work for less. They prevent employees from working for less, even if they want to. Even if they'd rather do that than be unemployed.

Likewise, "consumer protection" laws presume to force businesses to offer high-quality goods and services. But, again, they don't actually do that. They simply prohibit them from offering low-quality goods and services. They prevent customers from buying low-quality goods and services, even if they'd rather do that than go without. Even if the low-quality goods are all they can afford.

We need to raise awareness that increasing Congressional power to interfere in the economy doesn't "reign in" corporate power. Like throwing gasoline on a fire, it only feeds it.

Nice. Smart. But still it's crap.

Of course, lowly workers love nothing more than working for $3 an hour to benefit the corporation's bottom line. Hey, why not go for $2? Destitute Wall Mart and McD can use the workers' generosity. Of course, workers and their unions rail against the oppressive government-imposed mandate to earn more than that, just as Wall Mart lobbied fiercely for President Obama's proposal of $10.10.

And, of course, folks like nothing more than saving $5 on the tool they're buying, and the danger the tool will eventually electrocute them is not too huge a price to pay for that. And everybody likes saving some bucks on the next car, and the wheels coming off occassionally is a risk they'll gladly take.

Be honest, dblack, where did you get that crap?

I got it from observing the way the policies you advocate effect people living on the fringes of society. l've seen the underground economies they create and the segregated underclass they encourage. If you haven't seen it, and would rather read about it instead, I highly recommend Sudhir Venkatesh's excellent Off the Books. Don't worry, it's not a libertarian screed - you won't get 'Ayn Randed' - just a sober look at how people respond when they can't (or don't want to) live up to your minimum standards.

Far more preposterous is the naive belief that she wasn't there on behalf her benefactors, that the millions of dollars they donated to Baucus wasn't their 'entry fee' in exchange for her "participation".

You seem to have missed my condemnation of the "revolving door" in the posting to which you responded with the above. And yes, that's a problem. But one staffer doesn't control legislation, and 50+ other Senators going along with a bill allegedly written by one staffer on behalf of some "benefactors" you also cannot explain with that rant of yours about Fowler.

My rant? Are you talking about Bill Moyer's rant? Well, if you read my post, or watched his video, you'd realize what we're complaining about is the far broader problem that Fowler's story exemplifies, namely the intimate relationship between Washington and the businesses they claim to "regulate". And that intimate relationship IS why you don't get a public option. It's why a majority of Congress was against it even though a majority of voters wanted it.

And no, I didn't miss your condemnation of the "revolving door". I was responding to your eagerness to dismiss it when your guys are the "doormen".

All in all, I find it puzzling that the anti-Federal-government paranoiacs cannot see how partly dismantling the Federal government would empower the States, which are subject to the same (or worse) influences and all-too human impulses as is the Federal government, with the added peril that the States would be played off against each other, and thus even more subservient to the plutocracy, as opposed to We the People. And that's exactly the point where your theorizing is falling apart.

I'm not a radical 'states rights' supporter. And, in my understanding, this is exactly the problem that provisions like the Commerce Clause and the 14th amendment should address. But regardless of current interpretation, I'd like to see a new constitution define a clear federal oversight role in this regard. In particular, I'd want to see language that outlaws discriminatory taxation at all levels, and expressly forbids the kind of ad hoc "incentives" that states offer up to attract investment.

Also, it's probably a whole 'nother thread, but I'd like to open up a discussion about the liberal fixation with the "We the People" phrase. I'm still not quite sure what's up with that, though I definitely gather that it means something different to you than it does to me.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not a radical 'states rights' supporter. And, in my understanding, this is exactly the problem that provisions like the Commerce Clause and the 14th amendment should address. But regardless of current interpretation, I'd like to see a new constitution define a clear federal oversight role in this regard. In particular, I'd want to see language that outlaws discriminatory taxation at all levels, and expressly forbids the kind of ad hoc "incentives" that states offer up to attract investment.

I cherry picked this paragraph out of your Post #1281 as it addresses something different than the rest of the post.

What is your rationale for wanting to prohibit states from offering incentives to attract investment? And why the federal government should be the authority to prevent that?

 

[dblack]

I'm not a radical 'states rights' supporter. And, in my understanding, this is exactly the problem that provisions like the Commerce Clause and the 14th amendment should address. But regardless of current interpretation, I'd like to see a new constitution define a clear federal oversight role in this regard. In particular, I'd want to see language that outlaws discriminatory taxation at all levels, and expressly forbids the kind of ad hoc "incentives" that states offer up to attract investment.

I cherry picked this paragraph out of your Post #1281 as it addresses something different than the rest of the post.

What is your rationale for wanting to prohibit states from offering incentives to attract investment? And why the federal government should be the authority to prevent that?

It's because I believe ensuring a consistent protection of basic civil liberties amongst its member states is part of the point of a federal government in the first place. And, in my opinion, equal protection of the law is vital to any grant of sovereignty.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not a radical 'states rights' supporter. And, in my understanding, this is exactly the problem that provisions like the Commerce Clause and the 14th amendment should address. But regardless of current interpretation, I'd like to see a new constitution define a clear federal oversight role in this regard. In particular, I'd want to see language that outlaws discriminatory taxation at all levels, and expressly forbids the kind of ad hoc "incentives" that states offer up to attract investment.

I cherry picked this paragraph out of your Post #1281 as it addresses something different than the rest of the post.

What is your rationale for wanting to prohibit states from offering incentives to attract investment? And why the federal government should be the authority to prevent that?

It's because I believe ensuring a consistent protection of basic civil liberties amongst its member states is part of the point of a federal government in the first place. And, in my opinion, equal protection of the law is vital to any grant of sovereignty.

But how does a state or community providing economic incentives violate either civil liberties OR equal protection? And why should the people not be allowed liberty to do that?

 

[dblack]

I'm not a radical 'states rights' supporter. And, in my understanding, this is exactly the problem that provisions like the Commerce Clause and the 14th amendment should address. But regardless of current interpretation, I'd like to see a new constitution define a clear federal oversight role in this regard. In particular, I'd want to see language that outlaws discriminatory taxation at all levels, and expressly forbids the kind of ad hoc "incentives" that states offer up to attract investment.

I cherry picked this paragraph out of your Post #1281 as it addresses something different than the rest of the post.

What is your rationale for wanting to prohibit states from offering incentives to attract investment? And why the federal government should be the authority to prevent that?

It's because I believe ensuring a consistent protection of basic civil liberties amongst its member states is part of the point of a federal government in the first place. And, in my opinion, equal protection of the law is vital to any grant of sovereignty.

But how does a state or community providing economic incentives violate either civil liberties OR equal protection?

If they're giving preferential treatment to specific people, or specific classes of people, that's an obvious violation of equal protection. How is it not?

And why should the people not be allowed liberty to do that?

They should be allowed to do that, on a voluntary basis. If some members of the community want to make a pledge to give Wal-mart a portion of their income for the next three years, to encourage them open a store there - that's their business. But they have no right to force their neighbors to play along.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not a radical 'states rights' supporter. And, in my understanding, this is exactly the problem that provisions like the Commerce Clause and the 14th amendment should address. But regardless of current interpretation, I'd like to see a new constitution define a clear federal oversight role in this regard. In particular, I'd want to see language that outlaws discriminatory taxation at all levels, and expressly forbids the kind of ad hoc "incentives" that states offer up to attract investment.

I cherry picked this paragraph out of your Post #1281 as it addresses something different than the rest of the post.

What is your rationale for wanting to prohibit states from offering incentives to attract investment? And why the federal government should be the authority to prevent that?

It's because I believe ensuring a consistent protection of basic civil liberties amongst its member states is part of the point of a federal government in the first place. And, in my opinion, equal protection of the law is vital to any grant of sovereignty.

But how does a state or community providing economic incentives violate either civil liberties OR equal protection?

If they're giving preferential treatment to specific people, or specific classes of people, that's an obvious violation of equal protection. How is it not?

And why should the people not be allowed liberty to do that?

They should be allowed to do that, on a voluntary basis. If some members of the community want to make a pledge to give Wal-mart a portion of their income for the next three years, to encourage them open a store there - that's their business. But they have no right to force their neighbors to play along.

This is based on some of my personal research for a presentation I did awhile back. In the late 1970's, Rio Rancho was a small town 100% dependent on Albuquerque for its very existence as it had no resources and little economic future for its fewer than 9,000 people. It depended on Albuquerque and/or Santa Fe or other nearby cities to school the kids, for hospitals, for ambulance service, and at times had to depend on the county for police protection as well as for most of the jobs for the people.

But visionary community leaders realized Intel was looking to build a new plant. They had annexed a large tract of undeveloped land that was essentially worthless for farming or ranching and not attractive for housing development. So after getting support from the towns people to offer the land, they got an agreement from the state for tax concessions for ten years for a new enterprise should they be able to entice Intel to Rio Rancho.

The discussions included such concepts as would there be any significant out-of-pocket expenses for the town or the state? Answer: no.

Would Intel be competing with any other New Mexico businesses or cause any negative economic impact? Answer. No.

The offer was made and Intel accepted the land and tax advantages and opened their new facility in 1980 and quickly became New Mexico's largest private sector industrial employer. Within a decade Rio Rancho has become one of New Mexico's larger cities and at least until recently was the fastest growing city in New Mexico and on just about everybody's list of most desirable places to move. Because of Intel they now have their own thriving commercial base, hospitals, schools, and are dependent on nobody.

In 2013 the Albuquerque Journal reported the impact Intel has had on the State:

Intel Rio Rancho: by the numbers
Intel operations have a $909 million average annual economic impact on New Mexico.
The company:
• Spends an average of $245 million annually with New Mexico businesses.
• Has made an average of $1 billion annually in capital investments in New Mexico since 1995.
• Directly employs about 3,300 people, indirectly generating 26 additional jobs in New Mexico for every 10 Intel workers.
• Accounts for about 50 percent of all New Mexico exports annually.
• Contributes more than $4 million a year to local nonprofits and schools.

I think the people of Rio Rancho and New Mexico have most definitely gotten their money's worth for their investment in economic enticement.

I have to believe that the people of the individual states are as able to determine what is fair and just for them more than the federal government is likely to determine that.

We have been in agreement that liberty by its very nature must allow people the ability to make bad or wrong choices as well as good ones. Liberty must allow people to get it wrong as well as right.

I think that has to apply to how each state looks to its own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[dblack]

I'm not a radical 'states rights' supporter. And, in my understanding, this is exactly the problem that provisions like the Commerce Clause and the 14th amendment should address. But regardless of current interpretation, I'd like to see a new constitution define a clear federal oversight role in this regard. In particular, I'd want to see language that outlaws discriminatory taxation at all levels, and expressly forbids the kind of ad hoc "incentives" that states offer up to attract investment.

I cherry picked this paragraph out of your Post #1281 as it addresses something different than the rest of the post.

What is your rationale for wanting to prohibit states from offering incentives to attract investment? And why the federal government should be the authority to prevent that?

It's because I believe ensuring a consistent protection of basic civil liberties amongst its member states is part of the point of a federal government in the first place. And, in my opinion, equal protection of the law is vital to any grant of sovereignty.

But how does a state or community providing economic incentives violate either civil liberties OR equal protection?

If they're giving preferential treatment to specific people, or specific classes of people, that's an obvious violation of equal protection. How is it not?

And why should the people not be allowed liberty to do that?

They should be allowed to do that, on a voluntary basis. If some members of the community want to make a pledge to give Wal-mart a portion of their income for the next three years, to encourage them open a store there - that's their business. But they have no right to force their neighbors to play along.

This is based on some of my personal research for a presentation I did awhile back. In the late 1970's, Rio Rancho was a small town 100% dependent on Albuquerque for its very existence as it had no resources and little economic future for its fewer than 9,000 people. It depended on Albuquerque and/or Santa Fe or other nearby cities to school the kids, for hospitals, for ambulance service, and at times had to depend on the county for police protection as well as for most of the jobs for the people.

But visionary community leaders realized Intel was looking to build a new plant. They had annexed a large tract of undeveloped land that was essentially worthless for farming or ranching and not attractive for housing development. So after getting support from the towns people to offer the land, they got an agreement from the state for tax concessions for ten years for a new enterprise should they be able to entice Intel to Rio Rancho.

The discussions included such concepts as would there be any significant out-of-pocket expenses for the town or the state? Answer: no.

Would Intel be competing with any other New Mexico businesses or cause any negative economic impact? Answer. No.

The offer was made and Intel accepted the land and tax advantages and opened their new facility in 1980 and quickly became New Mexico's largest private sector industrial employer. Within a decade Rio Rancho has become one of New Mexico's larger cities and at least until recently was the fastest growing city in New Mexico and on just about everybody's list of most desirable places to move. Because of Intel they now have their own thriving commercial base, hospitals, schools, and are dependent on nobody.

In 2013 the Albuquerque Journal reported the impact Intel has had on the State:

Intel Rio Rancho: by the numbers
Intel operations have a $909 million average annual economic impact on New Mexico.
The company:
• Spends an average of $245 million annually with New Mexico businesses.
• Has made an average of $1 billion annually in capital investments in New Mexico since 1995.
• Directly employs about 3,300 people, indirectly generating 26 additional jobs in New Mexico for every 10 Intel workers.
• Accounts for about 50 percent of all New Mexico exports annually.
• Contributes more than $4 million a year to local nonprofits and schools.

I think the people of Rio Rancho and New Mexico have most definitely gotten their money's worth for their investment in economic enticement.

I have to believe that the people of the individual states are as able to determine what is fair and just for them more than the federal government is likely to determine that.

We have been in agreement that liberty by its very nature must allow people the ability to make bad or wrong choices as well as good ones. Liberty must allow people to get it wrong as well as right.

I think that has to apply to how each state looks to its own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" apply to individuals, not states.

 

[Olde Europe]

I got it from observing the way the policies you advocate effect people living on the fringes of society. l've seen the underground economies they create and the segregated underclass they encourage. If you haven't seen it, and would rather read about it instead, I highly recommend Sudhir Venkatesh's excellent Off the Books. Don't worry, it's not a libertarian screed - you won't get 'Ayn Randed' - just a sober look at how people respond when they can't (or don't want to) live up to your minimum standards.

I am somewhat aware of the shadow economy circumventing minimum wage legislation, thank you. That this tragedy and crime exists is no reason to confine millions more to living in destitution, or to try to play off the worse off against the worst off. Minimum wage laws may not correct all of the ills of razor-sharp ellbows capitalism, and if you are truly appalled with what it looks like, you'd opt for vigorous enforcement, not for even more prevalent poverty.

I'm not a radical 'states rights' supporter. And, in my understanding, this is exactly the problem that provisions like the Commerce Clause and the 14th amendment should address. But regardless of current interpretation, I'd like to see a new constitution define a clear federal oversight role in this regard. In particular, I'd want to see language that outlaws discriminatory taxation at all levels, and expressly forbids the kind of ad hoc "incentives" that states offer up to attract investment.

Also, it's probably a whole 'nother thread, but I'd like to open up a discussion about the liberal fixation with the "We the People" phrase. I'm still not quite sure what's up with that, though I definitely gather that it means something different to you than it does to me.

As to the former, I again note with great pleasure a huge area of agreement. Much appreciated. That kind of beggar-thy-neighbor, rush-to-the-bottom policy needs to go, the earlier the better.

As to the latter, in my view this place would be near ideal to discuss the meaning of "We the People", as it stands at the very center of the current Constitution, and, if anything, this meaning ought to be clarified in any subsequent one. Thinking about it, I'd start out with the break in tradition the term signifies. It doesn't read, "We the King of XY, god's chosen ruler over ...". It also doesn't read, "We, the honorable counts, conscious of our own splendor etc. etc. etc.". Neither does it read, "We the corporate masters, financial overlords, and other owners of these lands". We the People thus signifies equals, bound together by a shared fate, and able to express a common will that demands respect from the powers that be. I think, this should suffice as a starting point.

 

[Derideo_Te]

We the People thus signifies equals, bound together by a shared fate, and able to express a common will that demands respect from the powers that be. I think, this should suffice as a starting point.

 

[Foxfyre]

I cherry picked this paragraph out of your Post #1281 as it addresses something different than the rest of the post.

What is your rationale for wanting to prohibit states from offering incentives to attract investment? And why the federal government should be the authority to prevent that?

It's because I believe ensuring a consistent protection of basic civil liberties amongst its member states is part of the point of a federal government in the first place. And, in my opinion, equal protection of the law is vital to any grant of sovereignty.

But how does a state or community providing economic incentives violate either civil liberties OR equal protection?

If they're giving preferential treatment to specific people, or specific classes of people, that's an obvious violation of equal protection. How is it not?

And why should the people not be allowed liberty to do that?

They should be allowed to do that, on a voluntary basis. If some members of the community want to make a pledge to give Wal-mart a portion of their income for the next three years, to encourage them open a store there - that's their business. But they have no right to force their neighbors to play along.

This is based on some of my personal research for a presentation I did awhile back. In the late 1970's, Rio Rancho was a small town 100% dependent on Albuquerque for its very existence as it had no resources and little economic future for its fewer than 9,000 people. It depended on Albuquerque and/or Santa Fe or other nearby cities to school the kids, for hospitals, for ambulance service, and at times had to depend on the county for police protection as well as for most of the jobs for the people.

But visionary community leaders realized Intel was looking to build a new plant. They had annexed a large tract of undeveloped land that was essentially worthless for farming or ranching and not attractive for housing development. So after getting support from the towns people to offer the land, they got an agreement from the state for tax concessions for ten years for a new enterprise should they be able to entice Intel to Rio Rancho.

The discussions included such concepts as would there be any significant out-of-pocket expenses for the town or the state? Answer: no.

Would Intel be competing with any other New Mexico businesses or cause any negative economic impact? Answer. No.

The offer was made and Intel accepted the land and tax advantages and opened their new facility in 1980 and quickly became New Mexico's largest private sector industrial employer. Within a decade Rio Rancho has become one of New Mexico's larger cities and at least until recently was the fastest growing city in New Mexico and on just about everybody's list of most desirable places to move. Because of Intel they now have their own thriving commercial base, hospitals, schools, and are dependent on nobody.

In 2013 the Albuquerque Journal reported the impact Intel has had on the State:

Intel Rio Rancho: by the numbers
Intel operations have a $909 million average annual economic impact on New Mexico.
The company:
• Spends an average of $245 million annually with New Mexico businesses.
• Has made an average of $1 billion annually in capital investments in New Mexico since 1995.
• Directly employs about 3,300 people, indirectly generating 26 additional jobs in New Mexico for every 10 Intel workers.
• Accounts for about 50 percent of all New Mexico exports annually.
• Contributes more than $4 million a year to local nonprofits and schools.

I think the people of Rio Rancho and New Mexico have most definitely gotten their money's worth for their investment in economic enticement.

I have to believe that the people of the individual states are as able to determine what is fair and just for them more than the federal government is likely to determine that.

We have been in agreement that liberty by its very nature must allow people the ability to make bad or wrong choices as well as good ones. Liberty must allow people to get it wrong as well as right.

I think that has to apply to how each state looks to its own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" apply to individuals, not states.

Oh come on. Only people can look to their own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So you know very well what I mean when I say that each state--or if you insist that I spell it out--the PEOPLE of each state--must be able to look to their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as they see fit or we might as well give the federal government all the authority as some seem to want it to have.

At any rate, would you comment on the argument I made for allowing states or local communities to provide economic incentives? Or explain what objection you have to that.

 

[dblack]

Oh come on. Only people can look to their own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So you know very well what I mean when I say that each state--or if you insist that I spell it out--the PEOPLE of each state--must be able to look to their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as they see fit or we might as well give the federal government all the authority as some seem to want it to have.

The PEOPLE, or the local government? The issue here, from my perspective, isn't a matter of scope. Local government violating equal protection of the law is no different in principle than the federal government doing it. It might be less harmful overall, and give people greater leeway to avoid it (by moving to another state), but it's still just as wrong.

At any rate, would you comment on the argument I made for allowing states or local communities to provide economic incentives? Or explain what objection you have to that.

I honestly didn't pay much attention to the details, and I trust that your assessment of the benefits such incentives brought to the community were accurate. But these are exactly the same kind of arguments that people (and "interest groups") make for similar federal policies.

Banning these policies wouldn't prohibit local communities and landowners from pursuing outside investment. But it would limit their ability to use the force of law, namely tax policy, to achieve their ends. They'd have to promote such community efforts on a voluntary basis.

 

[dblack]

I got it from observing the way the policies you advocate effect people living on the fringes of society. l've seen the underground economies they create and the segregated underclass they encourage. If you haven't seen it, and would rather read about it instead, I highly recommend Sudhir Venkatesh's excellent Off the Books. Don't worry, it's not a libertarian screed - you won't get 'Ayn Randed' - just a sober look at how people respond when they can't (or don't want to) live up to your minimum standards.

I am somewhat aware of the shadow economy circumventing minimum wage legislation, thank you. That this tragedy and crime exists is no reason to confine millions more to living in destitution, or to try to play off the worse off against the worst off. Minimum wage laws may not correct all of the ills of razor-sharp ellbows capitalism, and if you are truly appalled with what it looks like, you'd opt for vigorous enforcement, not for even more prevalent poverty.

The problem is much broader than minimum wage laws, which are currently of virtually no consequence. It has more to do with the overall regulatory barriers that prevent people from taking care of business. The irony here is that these regulations are usually passed in the name of making society safer. But people will do what they need and want to do, despite regulations. And when they do they'll do so as criminals, and expose themselves to all the additional dangers that entails.

 

[pillars]

I find the idea of rewriting the constitution arrogant as hell. It's worked darn well for the past 200+ years.

 

[dblack]

Also, it's probably a whole 'nother thread, but I'd like to open up a discussion about the liberal fixation with the "We the People" phrase. I'm still not quite sure what's up with that, though I definitely gather that it means something different to you than it does to me.

... in my view this place would be near ideal to discuss the meaning of "We the People", as it stands at the very center of the current Constitution, and, if anything, this meaning ought to be clarified in any subsequent one. Thinking about it, I'd start out with the break in tradition the term signifies. It doesn't read, "We the King of XY, god's chosen ruler over ...". It also doesn't read, "We, the honorable counts, conscious of our own splendor etc. etc. etc.". Neither does it read, "We the corporate masters, financial overlords, and other owners of these lands". We the People thus signifies equals, bound together by a shared fate, and able to express a common will that demands respect from the powers that be. I think, this should suffice as a starting point.

Ok... good. I'm with you so far. I'd say the key significance of the phrase, as used in the preamble, was to emphasize the primacy of the people, specifically in relation to the sovereignty of government. The point was to indicate the government serves society, and not the other way around. But how is the term being used these days?

To me, the phrase means something along the lines of "the private sector", but not limited to economic concerns. It means society sans government, people interacting without the benefit of coercive authority.

My observation is that "we the people" is most commonly used by modern liberals as an appeal to the primacy of majority rule, but I think that misses the point. In effect, that's no different than assigning ultimate authority to any select group (the king, landowners, masters of wealth, etc...), and if it was our intent we could more clearly begin the preamble with "We, the majority of the People". In contrast, I think "We the People" refers to, or at least should refer to, all of the people, not just the majority. This is an important distinction because when we say we seek government that respects the "will of the people" it implies something different. It implies that we should strive to respect the will of all individuals, and not view government as a means of imposing the will of the majority on the rest of society.

 

[dblack]

I find the idea of rewriting the constitution arrogant as hell. It's worked darn well for the past 200+ years.

Fortunately, we have plenty of arrogance around here.

 

[pillars]

Obviously.

 

[Montrovant]

It's because I believe ensuring a consistent protection of basic civil liberties amongst its member states is part of the point of a federal government in the first place. And, in my opinion, equal protection of the law is vital to any grant of sovereignty.

But how does a state or community providing economic incentives violate either civil liberties OR equal protection?

If they're giving preferential treatment to specific people, or specific classes of people, that's an obvious violation of equal protection. How is it not?

And why should the people not be allowed liberty to do that?

They should be allowed to do that, on a voluntary basis. If some members of the community want to make a pledge to give Wal-mart a portion of their income for the next three years, to encourage them open a store there - that's their business. But they have no right to force their neighbors to play along.

This is based on some of my personal research for a presentation I did awhile back. In the late 1970's, Rio Rancho was a small town 100% dependent on Albuquerque for its very existence as it had no resources and little economic future for its fewer than 9,000 people. It depended on Albuquerque and/or Santa Fe or other nearby cities to school the kids, for hospitals, for ambulance service, and at times had to depend on the county for police protection as well as for most of the jobs for the people.

But visionary community leaders realized Intel was looking to build a new plant. They had annexed a large tract of undeveloped land that was essentially worthless for farming or ranching and not attractive for housing development. So after getting support from the towns people to offer the land, they got an agreement from the state for tax concessions for ten years for a new enterprise should they be able to entice Intel to Rio Rancho.

The discussions included such concepts as would there be any significant out-of-pocket expenses for the town or the state? Answer: no.

Would Intel be competing with any other New Mexico businesses or cause any negative economic impact? Answer. No.

The offer was made and Intel accepted the land and tax advantages and opened their new facility in 1980 and quickly became New Mexico's largest private sector industrial employer. Within a decade Rio Rancho has become one of New Mexico's larger cities and at least until recently was the fastest growing city in New Mexico and on just about everybody's list of most desirable places to move. Because of Intel they now have their own thriving commercial base, hospitals, schools, and are dependent on nobody.

In 2013 the Albuquerque Journal reported the impact Intel has had on the State:

Intel Rio Rancho: by the numbers
Intel operations have a $909 million average annual economic impact on New Mexico.
The company:
• Spends an average of $245 million annually with New Mexico businesses.
• Has made an average of $1 billion annually in capital investments in New Mexico since 1995.
• Directly employs about 3,300 people, indirectly generating 26 additional jobs in New Mexico for every 10 Intel workers.
• Accounts for about 50 percent of all New Mexico exports annually.
• Contributes more than $4 million a year to local nonprofits and schools.

I think the people of Rio Rancho and New Mexico have most definitely gotten their money's worth for their investment in economic enticement.

I have to believe that the people of the individual states are as able to determine what is fair and just for them more than the federal government is likely to determine that.

We have been in agreement that liberty by its very nature must allow people the ability to make bad or wrong choices as well as good ones. Liberty must allow people to get it wrong as well as right.

I think that has to apply to how each state looks to its own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" apply to individuals, not states.

Oh come on. Only people can look to their own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So you know very well what I mean when I say that each state--or if you insist that I spell it out--the PEOPLE of each state--must be able to look to their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as they see fit or we might as well give the federal government all the authority as some seem to want it to have.

At any rate, would you comment on the argument I made for allowing states or local communities to provide economic incentives? Or explain what objection you have to that.

I have a quick question. If we're talking about rewriting the Constitution, why do you consider the separation of the states important? How is the will of the people better served by having representation at the state level separate from the federal level, particularly in this connected, digital age? If scale is the answer (each individual is better able to enjoy his/her freedom at a smaller scale) why stop at the current states? Why not, for example, make each county its own state? We could have the 500 rather than 50 states of the United States.

Other than tradition, I've often wondered why people seem to find the states, as they stand, to be so important. State government is just as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, and modern travel and communications make the differences of distance far less an issue than they were in the past. If nothing else, why not remake state borders so they are less arbitrary?

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh come on. Only people can look to their own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So you know very well what I mean when I say that each state--or if you insist that I spell it out--the PEOPLE of each state--must be able to look to their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as they see fit or we might as well give the federal government all the authority as some seem to want it to have.

The PEOPLE, or the local government? The issue here, from my perspective, isn't a matter of scope. Local government violating equal protection of the law is no different in principle than the federal government doing it. It might be less harmful overall, and give people greater leeway to avoid it (by moving to another state), but it's still just as wrong.

At any rate, would you comment on the argument I made for allowing states or local communities to provide economic incentives? Or explain what objection you have to that.

I honestly didn't pay much attention to the details, and I trust that your assessment of the benefits such incentives brought to the community were accurate. But these are exactly the same kind of arguments that people (and "interest groups") make for similar federal policies.

Banning these policies wouldn't prohibit local communities and landowners from pursuing outside investment. But it would limit their ability to use the force of law, namely tax policy, to achieve their ends. They'd have to promote such community efforts on a voluntary basis.

But why limit them? You still haven't explained how the State of New Mexico and the town of Rio Rancho teaming up to provide financial incentives for Intel to locate in Rio Rancho violates any concept of equal protection. Because this was a deal that was truly social contract, nobody was disadvantaged in any way and the people of New Mexico have all benefitted from it including more opportunity for tens of thousands and lower taxes for everybody who pays state taxes.

Your earlier post suggested that you would favor the federal government being given authority to prevent states and local communities from making these kinds of deals. You could be right. But I still haven't seen a good argument for why the federal government should be given that authority.

 

[Foxfyre]

But how does a state or community providing economic incentives violate either civil liberties OR equal protection?

If they're giving preferential treatment to specific people, or specific classes of people, that's an obvious violation of equal protection. How is it not?

And why should the people not be allowed liberty to do that?

They should be allowed to do that, on a voluntary basis. If some members of the community want to make a pledge to give Wal-mart a portion of their income for the next three years, to encourage them open a store there - that's their business. But they have no right to force their neighbors to play along.

This is based on some of my personal research for a presentation I did awhile back. In the late 1970's, Rio Rancho was a small town 100% dependent on Albuquerque for its very existence as it had no resources and little economic future for its fewer than 9,000 people. It depended on Albuquerque and/or Santa Fe or other nearby cities to school the kids, for hospitals, for ambulance service, and at times had to depend on the county for police protection as well as for most of the jobs for the people.

But visionary community leaders realized Intel was looking to build a new plant. They had annexed a large tract of undeveloped land that was essentially worthless for farming or ranching and not attractive for housing development. So after getting support from the towns people to offer the land, they got an agreement from the state for tax concessions for ten years for a new enterprise should they be able to entice Intel to Rio Rancho.

The discussions included such concepts as would there be any significant out-of-pocket expenses for the town or the state? Answer: no.

Would Intel be competing with any other New Mexico businesses or cause any negative economic impact? Answer. No.

The offer was made and Intel accepted the land and tax advantages and opened their new facility in 1980 and quickly became New Mexico's largest private sector industrial employer. Within a decade Rio Rancho has become one of New Mexico's larger cities and at least until recently was the fastest growing city in New Mexico and on just about everybody's list of most desirable places to move. Because of Intel they now have their own thriving commercial base, hospitals, schools, and are dependent on nobody.

In 2013 the Albuquerque Journal reported the impact Intel has had on the State:

Intel Rio Rancho: by the numbers
Intel operations have a $909 million average annual economic impact on New Mexico.
The company:
• Spends an average of $245 million annually with New Mexico businesses.
• Has made an average of $1 billion annually in capital investments in New Mexico since 1995.
• Directly employs about 3,300 people, indirectly generating 26 additional jobs in New Mexico for every 10 Intel workers.
• Accounts for about 50 percent of all New Mexico exports annually.
• Contributes more than $4 million a year to local nonprofits and schools.

I think the people of Rio Rancho and New Mexico have most definitely gotten their money's worth for their investment in economic enticement.

I have to believe that the people of the individual states are as able to determine what is fair and just for them more than the federal government is likely to determine that.

We have been in agreement that liberty by its very nature must allow people the ability to make bad or wrong choices as well as good ones. Liberty must allow people to get it wrong as well as right.

I think that has to apply to how each state looks to its own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" apply to individuals, not states.

Oh come on. Only people can look to their own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So you know very well what I mean when I say that each state--or if you insist that I spell it out--the PEOPLE of each state--must be able to look to their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as they see fit or we might as well give the federal government all the authority as some seem to want it to have.

At any rate, would you comment on the argument I made for allowing states or local communities to provide economic incentives? Or explain what objection you have to that.

I have a quick question. If we're talking about rewriting the Constitution, why do you consider the separation of the states important? How is the will of the people better served by having representation at the state level separate from the federal level, particularly in this connected, digital age? If scale is the answer (each individual is better able to enjoy his/her freedom at a smaller scale) why stop at the current states? Why not, for example, make each county its own state? We could have the 500 rather than 50 states of the United States.

Other than tradition, I've often wondered why people seem to find the states, as they stand, to be so important. State government is just as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, and modern travel and communications make the differences of distance far less an issue than they were in the past. If nothing else, why not remake state borders so they are less arbitrary?

It should be up to the people of the states involved to make any changes to state borders.

As for state government being as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, yes it is. But as long as the federal government exercises its proper authority to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other, such corruption and abuse is limited to that state instead of the whole country. The people of that state can either choose to deal with it and correct it or move elsewhere without giving up their country. In my opinion, when the people are more dependent on their state instead of the federal government for good government, they are far more likely to demand and get good state government.

But when the federal government oversteps its authority with abuse and corruption, we have nowhere to go other than to give up our country. And it is far more difficult for any given area to have much influence in that regard or be able to focus on the particular needs of their own state.

The smaller and more local government is, the better that government is likely to be.

 

[dblack]

But why limit them? You still haven't explained how the State of New Mexico and the town of Rio Rancho teaming up to provide financial incentives for Intel to locate in Rio Rancho violates any concept of equal protection. Because this was a deal that was truly social contract, nobody was disadvantaged in any way and the people of New Mexico have all benefitted from it including more opportunity for thousands and lower taxes for everybody who pays state taxes.

I consider discriminatory taxation a violation of equal protection. Would you also approve if state or local government offered lower tax rates to people with high IQs? Surely, adding more smart people to the local population would benefit the community, right?

I believe government, regardless of scope, is there to protect our freedom to create the kind of communities we want, voluntarily, as free individuals. It shouldn't be used as a tool to force others to adhere to our vision of the ideal community.

Your earlier post suggested that you would favor the federal government being given authority to prevent states and local communities from making these kinds of deals. You could be right. But I still haven't seen a good argument for why the federal government should be given that authority.

It would be approximately the same argument for giving federal government the right to ban slavery, or Jim Crow laws, or any other violation of basic civil liberties.