ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #301
Billo did say that I could charge one thing
I am assuming even convincing god.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Or maybe I'd go back in tell god to make all human races equal.That would make the world a better place. Hopefully on the higher side of intelligence.
You would tell God?
Did the arrogance of that statement go right over your head? I mean really, I am an atheist and I dont think that I would tell God anything if I found myself with that possibility; I dont think I could be that presumptuous.
Really? Can you produce this "social contract and that the federal government would be hands off in what the people did with that "?
I can point to the Constitution and all the documents the Founders left us that provide all the rationale that went into the Constitution. I spent several years studying those in both highschool and college. It is a shame everybody didn't.
Did they teach you this?
Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.
So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.
Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.
Early laws regulating corporations in America
*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.
*Corporations licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).
*The state legislature could revoke a corporations charter if it misbehaved.
*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.
*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldnt break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were just doing their job when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.
*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.
*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.
*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted in perpetuity, as is now the practice).
*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.
*Corporations real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).
*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.
*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.
*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.
*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.
The Early Role of Corporations in America
The Legacy of the Founding Parents
Since those laws were the laws of one state, that state could overturn those laws at will. Sometimes our friends have a really tough time understanding that government exists at myriad levels beginning with the family and on up into more formal structures. The federal government is NOT state government, is NOT local government.
The Founders intended the federal government to have ability to prevent states from doing physical, environmental, economic violence to each other, and initiate and enforce anti trust laws that would prevent economic mischief beyond state lines, but then each state was left alone to make its own laws, for the people to govern themselves. They did not intend for the federal government to oversee or dictate state laws.
I did not get from the OP, however, that this thread is devoted to the evils or virtues of corporations. If the formation of corporations is important enough to you to be the one thing of history you would change, well then that is your conviction. Personally, I think a federal government restricted to its constiitutional functions was the way to go. A great deal of the problems we have now from corporate mischief and many other issues is due to federal meddling, not federal restraint.
The BP oil spill wasn't caused by federal meddling.Since those laws were the laws of one state, that state could overturn those laws at will. Sometimes our friends have a really tough time understanding that government exists at myriad levels beginning with the family and on up into more formal structures. The federal government is NOT state government, is NOT local government.
The Founders intended the federal government to have ability to prevent states from doing physical, environmental, economic violence to each other, and initiate and enforce anti trust laws that would prevent economic mischief beyond state lines, but then each state was left alone to make its own laws, for the people to govern themselves. They did not intend for the federal government to oversee or dictate state laws.
I did not get from the OP, however, that this thread is devoted to the evils or virtues of corporations. If the formation of corporations is important enough to you to be the one thing of history you would change, well then that is your conviction. Personally, I think a federal government restricted to its constiitutional functions was the way to go. A great deal of the problems we have now from corporate mischief and many other issues is due to federal meddling, not federal restraint.
I'd ask God to condemn the Boston Celtics to eternal damnation, but that's just me.I am also an Atheist but if I were to be given the opportunity to speak to God I would ask him who created him. If God says nothing then that would make God an Atheist just like me so we would have something in common.![]()
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'Or maybe I'd go back in tell god to make all human races equal.That would make the world a better place. Hopefully on the higher side of intelligence.
You would tell God?
Did the arrogance of that statement go right over your head? I mean really, I am an atheist and I dont think that I would tell God anything if I found myself with that possibility; I dont think I could be that presumptuous.
I am also an Atheist but if I were to be given the opportunity to speak to God I would ask him who created him. If God says nothing then that would make God an Atheist just like me so we would have something in common.![]()
Since those laws were the laws of one state, that state could overturn those laws at will. Sometimes our friends have a really tough time understanding that government exists at myriad levels beginning with the family and on up into more formal structures. The federal government is NOT state government, is NOT local government.
The Founders intended the federal government to have ability to prevent states from doing physical, environmental, economic violence to each other, and initiate and enforce anti trust laws that would prevent economic mischief beyond state lines, but then each state was left alone to make its own laws, for the people to govern themselves. They did not intend for the federal government to oversee or dictate state laws.
I did not get from the OP, however, that this thread is devoted to the evils or virtues of corporations. If the formation of corporations is important enough to you to be the one thing of history you would change, well then that is your conviction. Personally, I think a federal government restricted to its constiitutional functions was the way to go. A great deal of the problems we have now from corporate mischief and many other issues is due to federal meddling, not federal restraint.
Point taken, Foxy. Could you please provide some examples of "corporate mischief" as a direct result of "federal meddling"? TYIA.
Late to the party but here's what I would change:
I would go back to the early days of this country. I would go down south and tell the plantation owners what their future holds and what happened to the country. I would convince them to look for other ways to harvest their crop and to pack up every single slave they have and ship them all back to Africa.
Since those laws were the laws of one state, that state could overturn those laws at will. Sometimes our friends have a really tough time understanding that government exists at myriad levels beginning with the family and on up into more formal structures. The federal government is NOT state government, is NOT local government.
The Founders intended the federal government to have ability to prevent states from doing physical, environmental, economic violence to each other, and initiate and enforce anti trust laws that would prevent economic mischief beyond state lines, but then each state was left alone to make its own laws, for the people to govern themselves. They did not intend for the federal government to oversee or dictate state laws.
I did not get from the OP, however, that this thread is devoted to the evils or virtues of corporations. If the formation of corporations is important enough to you to be the one thing of history you would change, well then that is your conviction. Personally, I think a federal government restricted to its constiitutional functions was the way to go. A great deal of the problems we have now from corporate mischief and many other issues is due to federal meddling, not federal restraint.
Point taken, Foxy. Could you please provide some examples of "corporate mischief" as a direct result of "federal meddling"? TYIA.
Three examples:
Enron
The housing bubble
Solyndra
The other examples are legion.
Point taken, Foxy. Could you please provide some examples of "corporate mischief" as a direct result of "federal meddling"? TYIA.
Three examples:
Enron
The housing bubble
Solyndra
The other examples are legion.
Thank you. Enron and the housing bubble were both as a result of federal deregulation. Removing restraints that were previously in place allowed them to happen. Solyndra is an example of the government investing in the future of this nation. This has been happening since it was first formed. As all of the investment brochures warn results are not guaranteed. What we need to keep in mind is whether the overall benefit exceeds the costs.
What surprised me was that you failed to mention NASA. Surely the exploration of space is something that private enterprise should undertake and the federal government should not "meddle" with? But what happened as a direct result of that government "meddling"? There was a direct need for very lightweight components that could perform the complex calculations needed during space flight. That created the market for handheld calculators and digital watches. Shortly thereafter we had the advent of the first personal computers. That was the seed planted by the "meddling" federal government that allows you and I to have have this conversation today. Would you go back in time and stop that "government "meddling" from happening if you had the chance? In the interests of full disclosure I would go back and stop the deregulation that caused both Enron and the housing bubble myself.![]()
Late to the party but here's what I would change:
I would go back to the early days of this country. I would go down south and tell the plantation owners what their future holds and what happened to the country. I would convince them to look for other ways to harvest their crop and to pack up every single slave they have and ship them all back to Africa.
Damn good answer.. It would change the entire course of this nation and eliminate the class of people who STILL centuries later, use it for an excuse to point fingers, sling hatred, cause division, and become a permanent parasite on the American economy buying in the "you cant do any better better argument because you're black."
Late to the party but here's what I would change:
I would go back to the early days of this country. I would go down south and tell the plantation owners what their future holds and what happened to the country. I would convince them to look for other ways to harvest their crop and to pack up every single slave they have and ship them all back to Africa.
Damn good answer.. It would change the entire course of this nation and eliminate the class of people who STILL centuries later, use it for an excuse to point fingers, sling hatred, cause division, and become a permanent parasite on the American economy buying in the "you cant do any better better argument because you're black."
For the sake of argument only these questions are directed at Predfan and LadyGunSlinger. Assuming you were successful in returning 100% of the slaves to Africa who do you think would be occupying that rung on the economic ladder today if the descendants of the slaves were not around? Who would have "become a permanent parasite on the American economy" instead?
Damn good answer.. It would change the entire course of this nation and eliminate the class of people who STILL centuries later, use it for an excuse to point fingers, sling hatred, cause division, and become a permanent parasite on the American economy buying in the "you cant do any better better argument because you're black."
For the sake of argument only these questions are directed at Predfan and LadyGunSlinger. Assuming you were successful in returning 100% of the slaves to Africa who do you think would be occupying that rung on the economic ladder today if the descendants of the slaves were not around? Who would have "become a permanent parasite on the American economy" instead?
Probably a proportional mixture of races. Mostly white of course, some hispanic, some black, all in proportion to their population in society. Not grossly out of proportion as it is today.
Damn good answer.. It would change the entire course of this nation and eliminate the class of people who STILL centuries later, use it for an excuse to point fingers, sling hatred, cause division, and become a permanent parasite on the American economy buying in the "you cant do any better better argument because you're black."
For the sake of argument only these questions are directed at Predfan and LadyGunSlinger. Assuming you were successful in returning 100% of the slaves to Africa who do you think would be occupying that rung on the economic ladder today if the descendants of the slaves were not around? Who would have "become a permanent parasite on the American economy" instead?
Probably a proportional mixture of races. Mostly white of course, some hispanic, some black, all in proportion to their population in society. Not grossly out of proportion as it is today.
That's really funny!! Talk about "hoist by his own petard"!!!I'm sorry, but it's "provide"!"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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".
"Promote", not "Provide". I'm sure the founding fathers would appreciate you not butchering the preamble.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Even Adam Smith did not believe in the "invisible hand" of the marketplace, unhindered by regulation.Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.
Early laws regulating corporations in America
*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.
*Corporations licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).
*The state legislature could revoke a corporations charter if it misbehaved.
*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.
*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldnt break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were just doing their job when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.
*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.
*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.
*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted in perpetuity, as is now the practice).
*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.
*Corporations real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).
*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.
*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.
*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.
*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.
The Early Role of Corporations in America
The Legacy of the Founding Parents