If you could go back in time and stop one historical event, what would it be?

[ScienceRocks]

Billo did say that I could charge one thing I am assuming even convincing god.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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 don’t think that I would tell God anything if I found myself with that possibility; I don’t 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.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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 corporation’s 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 couldn’t 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

Too bad we can't repeal whatever laws overturned those original regulations.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

BTW, your dodge of my point wasn't very good, as I got my answer in your post. Which is, that while you are "against" charity to the working poor, you are "for" charity to their corporate sponsors.

 

[Billo_Really]

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'd ask God to condemn the Boston Celtics to eternal damnation, but that's just me.

 

[FA_Q2]

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 don’t think that I would tell God anything if I found myself with that possibility; I don’t 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.

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
-Douglass Adams, Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

 

[PredFan]

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.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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."

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Will respectfully disagree. Not one of the three was due to deregulation but was due to government subsidies, manipulation, mandates and interference with the natural supply and demand. But let's not derail the thread with a detailed discussion of corporations and housing. A separate thread might be nteresting to some though. (And pssst, NASA is NOT a corporation and deserves it own discussion too.)

This thread is targeted at the one event in history we would change. My targeted event that I would have changed would have almost certainly prevented Enron, the housing bubble, and Solyndra and a myriad of other unnecessary scandals and economic tragedies.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

 

[PredFan]

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?

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.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Thank you for the honest response, PF. Am I correct in assuming that you are drawing a direct correlation between the enslavement of blacks and their current over representation on the lowest rung?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

All you guys have to do is eliminate Roosevelt's "Square Deal" that opened the gates to excessive federal meddling and the welfare state, and the descendants of those slaves would not now make up the core of the permanent underclass dependent on government benevolence and seeing that as their right. At the time of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiatives, those descendants of slaves were the most rapidly advancing demographic economically. But the expansion of the welfare state pretty much stopped that advancement cold. Left alone they would almost certainly be fully assimilated into American culture and society today and far better off than they have been with all that what should have been illegal government meddling. Without TR Roosevelt's "Square Deal" there would have been no "New Deal" and no "Great Society" and we would not be sinking under unsustainable entitlements and an almost 17 trillion dollar national debt now.

 

[numan]

"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.

I'm sorry, but it's "provide"!

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;

That's really funny!! Talk about "hoist by his own petard"!!!

S.J., like so many who yak about the Constitution, doesn't even know what it says!! · ·

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nevertheless, does "provide for" mean the same things as "provide"? Subtle difference there. But the bottom line is what the Founders understood the 'general welfare' to be. And it was not to give taxpayer money to the poor or anybody else. In every aspect of the Constitution, they took great care to ensure that federal laws and policy would not favor or disfavor any individual based on their age, politics, or socioeconomic circumstances, or any other variables. The federal government's role was to promote the general welfare of the country fairly and equitably among all states and citizens. To target anybody or anything for favorable treatment was not to be the prerogative of the federal government.

 

[numan]

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 corporation’s 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 couldn’t 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

Even Adam Smith did not believe in the "invisible hand" of the marketplace, unhindered by regulation.

That form of folly required the "more perfect" idiocy of the corporate cultists of our own supremely brainwashed society.

They are incapable of understanding that the "invisible hand of the marketplace," devoid of appropriate regulation, leads inevitably to the "invisible mind of the marketplace," and to the imbecility and disaster which followed the Neo-Con swindlers dismantling economic regulation.

.