Until you decide that the people are informed enough, of course, you don't want them making their own decisions. I see.

Here's a shocker: Wal-Mart was responding to consumer demand. If the people agreed with you, the backlash to this off-shoring would have been signal enough to Wal-Mart and Vlassic. That this backlash didn't happen is compelling evidence of the "will of the people".

You don't think Wal-Mart would make a decision which would hurt their profitability, do you?

Wow, that's not even wrong. If there was such pent up demand for domestically manufactured products--as you assert must be the case--retailers, investors, and manufacturers would be tripping over themselves to provide it.

Do you really think they would leave such a lucrative market untapped?

You are aware that in the US, there is no such thing as a "national ballot", right? Statewide ballots are the biggest there is.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Um... Because people don't vote for the third party candidates in large enough numbers to win.

Why? Don't you have third party candidates on your ballots?

Oh, you do. I guess you really didn't have any kind of point there, did you?

So, the answer is "yes", you do think people are too stupid to make their own decisions. That raises the question as to why you go on so much about the "will of the people".

Nope. Domestically produced products were only "removed" from the market when no one was buying them.

If you really believe that the people want domestically made products, why don't you make some? If you're correct, you should have no shortage of customers, right?

Yes, I understand: You believe people are too stupid to see the consequences of their actions without you to tell them, right?

Nope, sorry. All you need are signatures. You could probably collect them in a couple of weekends yourself to get on any sub-statewide ballot. All you need is a couple bucks for copies.

Do you even know how you get signatures for ballot access? Your answers here seem to indicate that you don't. Maybe you should do some research and discover just how easy it is.

Oh, who paid you for your vote last election?

We agree upon the problem. It's your "solution" I disagree with.

If you want people to start treating stock less as a commodity to be traded, and more as a fraction of a corporation, we need to reform corporate governance in our country. Right now, people treat stock as very loosely connected to the underlying corporation, because it is loosely connected. Stockholders have very little power, relative to the management or board of directors.

If we restructure the way corporations are run, giving stockholders more power and control, you'll see people begin to treat stock itself as an instrument of such.

Your "solution" only addresses the symptoms, not the underlying problem.

You want to ban trading of stocks outside of specified windows, and would be willing to resort to excessive punishments for those who violate your rules.

Let's see: Ban something that people want to do? Check. Implement draconian punishments for those caught violating the ban? Check. How is this not the same strategy used in the current prohibition on drugs?

Your solution would make criminals out of normal, law-abiding, middle-class people who need to liquidate their stock quickly. You would force them to turn to some sort of organized crime. You would lock them up for years if you caught them selling their stock early, even if they were just doing it to pay grandma's nursing home bills.

See, I agree. But, your proposal is too onerous a regulation. Like I said earlier, if you regulate something to such an extent that it is more profitable to go underground, that's what will happen. You'll lose all control. This proposal is that kind of regulation.

Yes. But, remember my Oxycontin example. There's a drug that is not banned, but is regulated. Still, there is a sizable black market for it. That's a sign that the regulations upon it are too restrictive; you've lost control. I'm saying that this type of stock regulation is also too restrictive.

You underestimate people's willingness to risk punishment to make money. Just look at all the drug dealers doing 20+ years in prison today.

Bingo. That's because our current regulation of alcohol is not so restrictive as to create such a black market.

The biggest losers would be individual investors who don't know anyone in the newly-created underground stock market.

Like I said, I agree with the goal, just not the method. If you want people to treat stock as something with some intrinsic value, we should give stocks some intrinsic value (by increasing stockholder power over corporate governance). Your proposal simply doesn't do that.

Oh, so the people are too stupid to protect themselves?

Let me get this straight, to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. The people--not the corporations, not the government, just the people--decided to purchase cheap imports. Why do you not respect their decision?

You realize that it doesn't matter what kind of free-trade policies our government pursues, or how much outsourcing corporations do, if the American people decided to shun imports, there wouldn't be any, right?

Again I ask, why are you so quick to overturn the "will of the people" when they reach a conclusion you disagree with?

Do you know what it takes to get on the ballot? Just the support of a certain number of the people. You just need to get signatures. If they're not on the ballot, it's because the people didn't want them there.

Again, why do you only selectively value the "will of the people"?

Oh... I see. You want the "will of the people", but only when it agrees with you personally. The rest of the time, it should just be ignored, right? When "the people" decide they want cheap imports, that's not okay?

Did a corporation follow you into the voting booth? Were you not free to vote for whoever you wanted?

Let me know when that happens; because, then you might have a point.

The people are the final arbiter. But, we're talking about our representatives. Those representatives only have power under the Constitution.

The hierarchy goes like this: the people > Constitution > representatives

Well, there's your problem right here. If the "will of the people" truly had turned against the Constitution (or our present interpretation of it), we'd simply change it.

On this, I agree. Our institutions have too much control over our day to day lives.

This is simply a false dichotomy.

I don't know what you're talking about; who's "granting" you a job?

As soon as the "will of the people" reflects your own opinion, that's what will happen.

Non-sequitur

All of it...

Nowhere at all did I ever imply that they could not respond to the wishes of their constituents within the constitutional framework. The constitution allows us to change (almost**) any part of the laws, which we create to govern ourselves, constitutionally.

I don't understand why it is so hard for you to understand how we can have rule of law, and still have a government of, by, and for the people. There is no inherent incompatibility between the two; though you seem hell-bent on finding one.

I cannot understand how you fail to see that the only reason we have a congress to represent us in the first place, is because such an institution is empowered by the Constitution to do so. If we didn't have the constitution, our "representatives" would not have the authority to represent us at all.

** The only thing which we cannot do from within the framework of the constitution is to take away a state's Senatorial seats.

No, it's not. Sorry, I'm back here in the real world. Where are you?

No, that's not according to me. You must be talking about someone else. Maybe you should try actually reading my responses, instead of putting words in my mouth.

What makes you think that a changeable Constitution cannot exist within a system of rule of law? The method to change it is right there in the highest law of the land.

Your blatant misreadings of my posts must be intentional, right?

I don't know what kind of perverted meaning you personally assign to words. But, those meanings must be so different from what is commonly accepted that communication is almost impossible.

Did I mention opinions?

No, I didn't; only rulings. You know, the things which actually are enforceable.

Wait a minute. I never said anything of the sort.

Oh... right... You're just putting words in my mouth. I should expect it, huh?

You see... Words have meanings, which are arbitrary, but shared. We agree upon them so that we can exchange information. When someone, such as yourself, insists on using his own private meanings for words, which differ from the commonly accepted meaning, communication becomes impossible.

It's obvious you have reached this point.

So long as the change happens within the Constitutional system, we can have both.

I helpfully bolded the parts where you inserted words into my mouth which completely change the meaning of what I actually did write.

So, to prevent "distortion" in the market, your answer is to artificially distort the spread away from what supply and demand dictate?

Here's the problem: A stock's price is purely a function of supply and demand. That's it. That's all. If you make owning stock less attractive--which this plan would--you lower the demand, thus lowering the price.

Wrong.

Do you think a company only issues stocks once?

Corporations issue new stock all the time. The higher the stock price, the fewer shares they have to issue to raise a particular amount of capital. The fewer shares they issue, the less they dilute the value of already-outstanding shares.

The market price of a corporation's stock directly affects their ability to raise capital in the equities (and debt) market.

That's why it's impossible to obtain Oxycontin without a perscription, right?

Whoa there. Wait a minute...

You believe the drug war is ineffective and counterproductive, right? But, you want to implement the same strategies for stocks?

Here's the secret: To regulate any industry, you have to walk a very fine line. You have to ensure that complying with the regulation is more profitable for the participants (in general) than breaking the law. If it becomes more profitable for the market to move underground, it will. Just as with illegal drugs, if you regulate too harshly, you'll lose any control you once had.

Your plan would surely cross that line. And we'd be left with a huge new black-market, and all the corruption, violence, and disrespect for the law that such a market brings. The only group which should be in favor of your proposal is the mafia; it would be a hugely profitable new market for them.

That's simply not true. Look at the spread on any thinly traded stock, and compare it to the spread on one in the top half of the SP500. You can see that the size of the spread is inversely correlated with the volume.

Sure, volatility can increase the size of the spread. But, even then, you'll see the spread widen more with low-volume stocks than with high-volume stocks.

These are fundamentally different types of "investments". A person or company leases a car or a property in order to use it. On the other hand, the (almost) only reason to hold stock is to collect dividends and capital gains.

There's a big difference between use-value and resale-value, just ask any car owner.

I can't disagree with this. But, if you discourage equity investment, you'll incentivize debt financing. Corporations still need money. If you make equity unattractive for investors, they'll turn to debt.

I'm not comparing a legal market to an illegal one; you're advocating the creation of such an illegal market. You invalidate your own argument: "if we were to legalize drugs, then we can tax and better control them."(emphasis mine). Why do you want to push short-term market speculation underground? Do you think it will stop such actions? If so, then why hasn't the prohibition on drugs stopped their use?

People will always have the need or desire to liquidate their investments quickly (e.g. have to pay some medical bills... oops, can't sell your stock for another three years, sorry). By making such liquidation illegal, you're pushing them into the black market. The comparison with drugs is spot on.

If you eliminate, or seek to reduce, liquidity, you really don't have a market anymore. You'll have huge spreads which will make investment unattractive. You'll encourage more corporations to incorporate in countries which don't have these laws. And, you'll incentivize the use of debt for corporate finance.

But, the absolute worst thing you will do, and the reason why this is a really bad idea: you'll create a black market for stocks. You'll create an entire class of criminals out of people who need to liquidate their investment before you would let them. And, by driving the stock market underground, you've effectively given up any control you currently have. And look at how well that's worked out for controlling the drug market.

No, I'm specifically not arguing that. Nothing I've said even implies that conclusion.

The Constitution contains methods and procedures for legally changing it. How can so doing be a violation of the rule of law?

Now you're simply redefining words. Sorry, that's not at all what the law is.

And what Congress wants it to say... And what the President wants it to say... And what the states want it to say... And what the people want it to say...

"Those justices" don't issue rulings. The Supreme Court does.

This would appear to be a nonsensical response. But, since you seem determined to make up your own definition for words, is completely expected.

That's why the Constitution begins: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." What makes you think that the people cannot institute the rule of law?

No, I mean based completely in ignorance of the purpose, mechanism, or functioning of any type of government.

You're missing the point that there is no such thing as the Congress, Supreme Court, or the Presidency without the consent of the governed. If we wanted the system to be different, we could simply change it, completely peacefully, and according to the rule of law.

You're looking at these institutions as some sort of concrete and unchangeable facts of nature. They're not.

That's basically what I'm arguing the Constitution requires.

This is where you're not making sense. A "rule of law" system is not so constrained.

No. The only thing higher than the Supreme Court is the constitution which gives it power in the first place.

And the reason why the Supreme Court overturns a previous ruling? Could it be because they believe the previous decision was reached in error?

It's true: The federal government bears only a passing resemblance to what the founders envisioned. But, we still have three co-equal branches of government, which still create a descent system of checks-and-balances.

Yes, but then we would have an unconstitutional government. The only reason those congressmen have any power at all is because of the Constitution. To knowingly violate that would mean surrendering any pretense of legitimacy.

I'm sorry, but your views on the workings of government are as confused and incoherent as your views on economics.

(emphasis mine)

I don't know what you are referring to when you say "rule of law". But, that is pretty much what rule of law is. When the people demand something that is unconstitutional, we change the constitution. If that's not rule of law--and government of, by, and for the people--I don't know what is.

So, if the Supreme Court can be wrong in their decisions, that means they are not the final arbiter, right? If they truly were, they could not be wrong, by definition.

No, it's not. I don't know if you missed the whole "Three branches of government" unit in civics class, but that's not how it works at all.

Let's make this easy with an example: Let's say a congressman introduces a bill which would ban any speech critical of the ruling party. Further, let's say that the bill is overwhelmingly voted down because it is viewed, by the members of Congress, as unconstitutional.

Did they not just decide something was unconstitutional? Does the Supreme Court have any say over this matter at all, even if they were to disagree? Nope, not one whit. Congress unilaterally made a Constitutionality decision.

If the Supreme Court decided that a new law was required by the Constitution, could they enact it? Nope. They must rely upon the legislature for that.

You see, it's a dynamic tension between the legislative and judicial branches. The judiciary has a negative prerogative, where it can strike down laws which it finds unconstitutional. And, the congress has a positive prerogative, where it can enact laws which it finds constitutional.

(This completely leaves out the role of the Executive branch, who could pretty much dictate what will or will not be enforced, as the other two branches have no enforcement mechanism of their own.)

The concepts of the rule of law, and a government "of, by, and for the people" are not mutually exclusive. I don't understand how you can believe that they are.

Rule of law is what allows us to have a government "of, by, and for the people", in the first place.

Again, you're reading into the constitution something that just is not there. The constitution itself is the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.

Your mistake is thinking that just because the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional, that it actually is. You are aware that the Court has reversed itself a number of times, right?

You're absolutely correct. Unfortunately, it seems that the Republicans would rather have the political issue in play, than an end to legal abortion.

That's only true if you believe the Supreme Court is the absolute authority in deciding what is or is not constitutional.