That's correct. Get a 2/3 majority and one can change the constitution at whim. But getting a majority and especially 2/3 is difficult. (See Madison 10).

OK, my lack of proof reading aside next time you hear people say that the electoral college / winner take all aspect of presidential elections is proof that the US isn't living up to its democratic ideals what will you do?

Or when you hear the following argument?

capitalism is not conducive to a democracy and
since we are a democratic country
we should get rid of capitalism.

I guess having a Masters in History and leaving while going for a PhD in History is proof of my lack of knowledge. Either that or I'm off my rockers (which may very well be the case).

There are many in this country who espouse equality of outcome and wealth who promote the idea that this country is failing by living up to its democratic ideals. They give examples of this all the time - example the winner-take-all aspect while voting for President. I have heard and had debates with people numerous times who say that:

- capitalism is not democratic and
- since we are a democratic country
-therefore we should get rid of capitalism.

As a result of these discussions I make certain that people realize that calling this country a "democracy" is in fact part-and-parcel of a straw-man argument.

I did not make up these terms. And neither did you. A democracy and a republic are not the same. When you, or someone else says we are a democracy, and then say that we are not living up to the ideals of a democracy because we apportion our votes on a winner take all basis in the presidential election then that person has created a straw-man argument.

I'm certain you've heard many people saying that we should do away with winner take all model as it is not aligned with democratic ideals.

No. Not in the least. Neither the US Constitution nor capitalism is equal to, nor promotes, anarchy.

In your model (democracy) you would say that the majority (50%+1) can do whatever they want. In the Constitutional Republic model the government has certain powers and no others.

Congress may regulate interstate trade. Can this clause be expanded to mean any trade? If you grow tomatoes/weed in your backyard and sell it to me, your neighbor, are we in violation of the interstate trade clause? I would say not. We may be in violation of local and/or state laws but that is a different concern.

Asking / Demanding that the government to abide by the restrictions placed upon them by the constitution does not equal anarchy.

There is a major difference between a Republic and a Democracy - namely the source of the power of the government. Does the power come from the Constitution or is it majority rule?

Yes a democracy can also have a constitution but that's not the meaning of the words. You may argue that Positive and Negative Rights are poor words to describe the concept - nonetheless those are the accepted terms. The same as here.

Going back to the original point - the constitution limits the authority of where and how the government may act. 1st A: Congress shall not .... 10th A: all powers not given to the Federal Gov't belongs to the states, etc...

This is an important point. Let's not use the word Democracy to describe the US. We have never been a Democracy. When we say that the US is a Democracy and then complain that the US doesn't live up to Democratic ideals then we have created a strawman argument (either purposefully or by mistake).

And right wing means nothing either. It means "not-left" but lumps together Buckley with Buchanan with Bush with Murray Rothbard with Ayn Rand (and of course Hitler)

This is a Republic - not a Democracy. Corporations don't corrupt it. What corrupts it are politicians who use laws to help one entity over another. Whenever you increase the power of government (Do this, "Let's make a law to do that") you give one more area for the government to be "corrupted" as you say by corporations.

Don't give tax incentives. At all. The only way to do that is to have a flat tax. But no. That's not good enough. You need to go out of your way to try to force equality of outcome; you pervert the tax code and you wonder why others with more power and influence win out.

Get rid of tax incentives. Have a flat tax. Get rid of the corporations ability to push things in their favor. Also don't be so fu**ing greedy that people spend all their energy in tax avoidance.

Reducing government power by a flat tax and not tax incentives also reduces corporate power.

If the marginal cost of production is 0 for items which or necessary (food, clothing, lodging) and wanted (books, movies, video games, restaurants, travel,art supplies, etc) then the game will have changed.



Until then ...

1. Capitalism is not anarchy.
2. Capitalism did not cause the inequality and the plight of the common man. That existed pre-capitalism.
3. Capitalism and unions are not antithetical. (Bring gov't into the mix and it often is.)
4. A government controlled economy is like having huge corporations with armies, police forces and courts with little or no recourse for whatever plight you may have.

I think William Buckley once said he would rather have politicians chosen at random from the phone book than come exclusively from the Harvard faculty.

The goal of capitalism has nothing to do with removing human workers. The fact that sometimes efficiencies lead to fewer workers does not mean that is a goal. Cranes and pumps replaces having hundreds of people passing buckets of concrete or lugging steel beams around on their back. I think those efficiencies are good.

The problem will come because people still want to retire at 65 and live to 165; problems will come because people will keep breeding when there is no work and then expect others to pay for their offspring; problems will come because they expect to keep the same inefficiencies in place and will resist commonsense changes (Example closing Post Offices that no longer pay for themselves); problems will come because they expect the government to restrict competition because it means their job (or their company).

No. No. No. No.

Not even close.

The noble class was NOT declining in wealth and power at the end of the 11th C. The rise in cities does not indicate a concomitant loss of power in the noble class as you put it.

There were a lot of reasons for the crusades. One minor reason was that Jerusalem was held by Muslims. Of course Muslims would have no problem if a foreign imperialist power like say, Britain, had conquered Mecca and didn't allow Muslims to do their annual pilgrimage. Why would you not think that Christians would be offended if a foreign power controlled Jerusalem and that they weren't allowed to go there.



Now it gets more involved than that. You can see local Muslim powers allowing a few bands of Christian penitents to have access to Jerusalem but as Europe gets wealthier and more people go then it gets more problematic. It gets even more problematic when nobles go there (either out of personal piety or as punishment for a deed in which saying 3 hail marys just didn't cut it) and they bring their entourage. It get's even more problematic when a large part of this entourage are not penitents themselves. You can easily imagine scenes where a lord marches through a town with scores of bodyguards and servants and there is a dispute with muslim locals. Have enough problems and you can see why muslims started putting limits and then bans on travelling to the holy land.

Nonetheless the claptrap that the crusades was simply an attempt by the European noble class to ... blah, blah, blah ... is just that - claptrap.

The Inquisition. You mean the 2,000 - 10,000 (at the most) that were killed over a period of 300 years; with the overwhelming majority done over a few decades in Spain?

Compare that with Hitler 11,000,000 and Stalin 20,000,000+, and Mao 40,000,000+ and the Inquisition begins to pale in comparison.

That's not socialism. No laissez-faire capitalist would ever say that an industry should be given a handout. Now, mercantilist / corporate-cronists might argue that these subsidies are "needed" but that's one reason why laissez-faire capitalists are for less regulation. (Regulation can, and often does, include handouts to politically connected companies.

Removing these subsidies is PRECISELY what laissez-faire capitalism is all about.

And, to continue this, no Libertarian or small-government type of any stripe would consider this to be a raise in taxes.

But you know all this don't you?