Limiting the "rights" of the few to ensure the rights of many.

Hello Ats members! I have been thinking tonight and a thought process came to my head. This has probably been debated and discussed to death so any insight, proof in history, etc would be great as I do not know whether my ideology is sound.

-I believe in limiting the "rights" of the few, to ensure the rights of many. I believe in maximum wages, I believe in small government, I believe in large amounts of power being given to large amounts of people, and very small amounts of power being given to very small amounts of people. What does that look like, though? I am not sure - But here's my process, and I would like anyone to chime in, whether it's to shut me down with proper logic, refine my thought process into something more realistically applicable and better overall, or just any replies at all.

-So, first I would apply maximum wages - What would I put as a cap? Probably one-ten million dollars a year. With minimum wage jobs bringing in ~20,000 a year, there's no one that works 500 times harder, let alone more than that, nor anyone who is 500 times a better inventor, or has ideas that are 500 times better than others, etc - Which brings me to my next point.

I believe patents should be extremely limited. No general or broad patents, no ability to buy a patent only to throw it under the table because it's bad for your business ( GM and water powered cars, anyone? ) I believe that most ideas are already thought of, and implementation does not mean a person should be allowed to have a huge part of a market because their lawyers pushed the paperwork first. I realize copying anothers work exactly should not be okay, at least for a time period, but I truly believe for the most competitive markets, that patents should be very limited.

-No imports that are tagged as slave/child-labor, conflict-ridden, etc. If first world nations refused to buy from these people, better work conditions would be mandatory to trade. I'm not sure how this would be enforced and implemented, but this could cause better conditions across the globe.

Anyways these are just a few of my ideas, perhaps they are flawed, perhaps they are inconclusive, but that's what I have for now. I used to believe in capitalism - But even a chance at unlimited wealth, is guaranteed to include extreme corruption. I no longer believe that the government and corporations can be trusted with any large amount of money or power - As money can buy politicians, and politicians can favor corporations. I believe limiting these two would create a situation better for the huge majority.

Hope everyone here at ats has a great Thanksgiving!

-Deadlyhope

a reply to: deadlyhope

I believe in small government, I believe in large amounts of power being given to large amounts of people, and very small amounts of power being given to very small amounts of people.

More accurately called a "limited government", the original intent of the founding fathers had the government providing for the common defense and paying for that with tariffs on international trade.

Thats it. Unbelievable, huh?

a reply to: intrptr

There should be something in there limiting war, as well. Making it based on the will of the people.

a reply to: deadlyhope

And that the attacking country has to take care of the defenders citizens.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I believe in limiting the "rights" of the few, to ensure the rights of many.

You'll have to expand on this for us.

I can't get behind it in current context because the rights of many do not exist if the few are limited...
Those would be privileges not rights.

Please elaborate.

a reply to: deadlyhope


There is (supposed to be, anyway). Only congress can declare war and theres the three branches (check and balancing) provided by the Legislative (House and Senate) , the Judiciary (Supreme Court) and the Executive (President).

That means the senate and house have to approve a declaration of war which can be legally reviewed by the justices of the Supreme court and vetoed by the president.

Its a representative process, sadly hijacked by the powers that be behind the scenes. We don't even declare war anymore, (because theres no justification) we just wage it.

The process is bypassed, illegally. Without a declaration of war the military is not supposed to act. The judges should be pressing injunctions against waging aggressive war in foreign lands for no valid reason. The president should veto, but theres no declaration of war anyway…

…they have completely discarded the Constitutional safeguards to prevent what is and has been happening.

We are currently bombing and going to go boots on ground in Syria… declaration of war…? (crickets)

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: intrptr

There should be something in there limiting war, as well. Making it based on the will of the people.

The problem with making war contingent on the will of the people is this: Do you deny the necessity of WWII? How about the Civil War?

During the Civil War, there were periods where the North was in danger of losing the will of the people to wage war. It was one reason why Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. People in the north felt they should just let the South go off on its own. Imagine the differences in history had that happened.

In general, given the mood of the press, it is a bad idea to govern via popular opinion all the time. It is very easy to use the power of the pen to create a narrative and shape the will of the country despite the actual truth of the matter which is part of what this forum is all about.

War via popular opinion would see us going to invade one week and surrendering the next before turning around and doing it all again in a month or two.

Oh ... hey! Wait ...

a reply to: deadlyhope

What you describe is known as the dictatorship of the majority. One of the great flaws of democracy is that it can be used by voting majorities to oppress minorities.

My country is a democracy. It is also multi-ethnic. The dominant ethnic and religious majority used its electoral power to obtain special privileges for itself and to make life difficult or unpleasant for minority group members. The final results of this were a thirty-year civil war and a slide towards dictatorship. The war is over and the wannabe dictator and his family kicked out of power (democracy has its benefits too) but the minorities remain subdued and most of their grievances are still unaddressed. Equality for all under the constitution remains a distant mirage.

American democracy, too, is often hijacked by majorities. Blacks and other minorities have been prevented from voting and legislatively discriminated against. These inequities are now being put right, but every reform has to be squeezed past the angry, squealing majority. But America's constitution is a better thought-out and more robust document than my own country's, and minorities have been able to use it to defend themselves and win their civic rights. However, the inherent problem of over-mighty majorities continues to plague democracy. This thread is symptomatic of it.

I am afraid you have misunderstood the purpose of constitutional government. It is not to protect the majority from the minority but to protect minorities from the majority.

a reply to: ketsuko

In general, given the mood of the press, it is a bad idea to govern via popular opinion all the time.

The press is used to form opinion, they should just be reporting events.

Popular opinion doesn't govern, elected representatives decisions "govern". We elect them by popular vote (oops thats changed, too) to protect the interests of the people. By (for instance) not endangering the whole country by making war with other countries that could result in the destruction of this country.

WWII is a poor example, This country rallied to defend against The Germans and Japanese who were actively engaged in conquering the world at the time.


"Terrorism" isn't conquering the world. Thats the lie being used by the current conquerors to justify its own world domination.

a reply to: deadlyhope

You said, "-I believe in limiting the "rights" of the few, to ensure the rights of many".

I think no.

I believe in rights for everyone. I don't believe in equal outcomes, but I do believe in equal opportunity.

Limiting the "rights" of the few to ensure the rights of many.

The problem with that the "few" will always be changing. Governments have a history of moving the goal post.

a reply to: intrptr

If you look at the plethora of broadsides and such from the days surrounding the earliest days of the Republic, you'll see the press was just as opinionated back then as it is today, more so because there were far more independent news sources than there are today. The Internet was really a breath of fresh air in that respect bringing independence back into the game again versus the corporate media conglomerates who controlled the main narratives being pushed.

I used WWII and the Civil War as two examples of wars more people would consider justified. And you are correct that for the most part, the public sentiment was squarely behind WWII. However, there was a massive propaganda effort across the board to make sure public opinion stayed that way. Imagine trying to conduct an undertaking of WWII proportion with today's press and today's Hollywood. How solid do you think public opinion would stay if we had to fight something like WWII today had we had to go to war under GW Bush with the same hostile press, opposition party and Hollywood entertainment machine?

As for terrorism, it's the tactic being employed; the real enemy is an asymmetrical force that owns no flag, only a fundamental religious ideology that is to some extent co-religious with one of the most populous religions of the world and as such can move freely among them wherever they happen to have centers of worship and communities. Because of this, it can threaten most countries of the world with guerilla warfare inside their own borders. It does not help that our own leadership refuses to name the actual extent of the problem, and it also does not help that this is a new type of warfare needing new tactics to counter much like the Civil War lead to the creation of new tactics to counter new weaponry. In other words, we're making it up as we go along.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I believe in maximum wages, I believe in small government

This is a contradictory statement. You want limited government, but at the same time you want the government to decide how much a person can earn?

With minimum wage jobs bringing in ~20,000 a year, there's no one that works 500 times harder

That's true, but it's about what people are willing to pay. For some reason, people are willing to pay more for certain services than others.

I believe patents should be extremely limited.

I'd say this should be applied to the pharma industry. Don't allow pharmaceutical companies to patent generic drugs.

I believe that most ideas are already thought of

I hope we haven't come to the end of our inventive/technological potential as a species.

If first world nations refused to buy from these people, better work conditions would be mandatory to trade.

What if companies from first world nations would stop setting up sweat shops (or using ones already set up)?

As money can buy politicians, and politicians can favor corporations.

Limit congressional terms.

I believe limiting these two would create a situation better for the huge majority.

Which majority are you even talking about? Christians as a whole - a particular sect? Whites - or white females? Is the majority you speak of based on earning? I think the majority of Americans are heterosexual - even though some of those are considered in the minority in other categories. Do you see the problem with this thought process? What are you basically saying, even if you don't mean it this way, is that you want the laws to fit you at the expense of anyone else, because when you get down to it, you are the only majority.

Unless, of course, you are part of the minority and want to give up some rights for the group in a true display of altruism?

a reply to: deadlyhope

I am often in agreement with your posts, Deadlyhope, but on this topic we diverge. I am not sure what you mean by "limiting rights" on certain people, but I don't like the sound of that phrase. Maybe you meant it in another way, but I believe the rights of the individual trump the 'rights' of society.

Society is not a living, flesh and blood, human being and because of its status should be the one with limited rights. I believe firmly that only in cases where the actions of someone DIRECTLY affect another person's physical or property rights is there any limit to an individual's right to self-determination and pursuit of their goals.

I also don't believe in messing with wages. Rich people don't earn a salary...they have assets and investments and frankly you will never find them all because they are hidden inside corporations or overseas. Ultimately, you only end up disincentivizing and overcompensating by meddling with wages.

Labor is worth what someone will pay for it as are goods and services. When you start artificially messing with this basic economic principle you are going to cause imbalances elsewhere in the economy. It is inevitable.

Anyway, thank you for a good OP. I may not agree, but I appreciate.

a reply to: Astyanax

What country are you talking about?

I'm almost willing to bet that if it is a democracy it has a constitution. The problem is that a constitution doesn't guarantee anything, despite what americans might think.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Hello Ats members! I have been thinking tonight and a thought process came to my head. This has probably been debated and discussed to death so any insight, proof in history, etc would be great as I do not know whether my ideology is sound.

1 -I believe in limiting the "rights" of the few, to ensure the rights of many. I believe in maximum wages, I believe in small government, I believe in large amounts of power being given to large amounts of people, and very small amounts of power being given to very small amounts of people. What does that look like, though? I am not sure - But here's my process, and I would like anyone to chime in, whether it's to shut me down with proper logic, refine my thought process into something more realistically applicable and better overall, or just any replies at all.

2 -So, first I would apply maximum wages - What would I put as a cap? Probably one-ten million dollars a year. With minimum wage jobs bringing in ~20,000 a year, there's no one that works 500 times harder, let alone more than that, nor anyone who is 500 times a better inventor, or has ideas that are 500 times better than others, etc - Which brings me to my next point.

3 I believe patents should be extremely limited. No general or broad patents, no ability to buy a patent only to throw it under the table because it's bad for your business ( GM and water powered cars, anyone? ) I believe that most ideas are already thought of, and implementation does not mean a person should be allowed to have a huge part of a market because their lawyers pushed the paperwork first. I realize copying anothers work exactly should not be okay, at least for a time period, but I truly believe for the most competitive markets, that patents should be very limited.

4 -No imports that are tagged as slave/child-labor, conflict-ridden, etc. If first world nations refused to buy from these people, better work conditions would be mandatory to trade. I'm not sure how this would be enforced and implemented, but this could cause better conditions across the globe.

Anyways these are just a few of my ideas, perhaps they are flawed, perhaps they are inconclusive, but that's what I have for now. I used to believe in capitalism - But even a chance at unlimited wealth, is guaranteed to include extreme corruption. I no longer believe that the government and corporations can be trusted with any large amount of money or power - As money can buy politicians, and politicians can favor corporations. I believe limiting these two would create a situation better for the huge majority.

Hope everyone here at ats has a great Thanksgiving!

-Deadlyhope

1 - "I believe in limiting the "rights" of the few, to ensure the rights of many." what does that even mean?

In order for you to have rights, you need a dictator who owns you, and therefore are able to give you "rights" - you can call this dictator whatever you want, a boss, a president, the people, democracy - its all the same, someone is "giving" you rights.. You would have to eliminate slavery, before you get a system that works - now, you can agree on a set of rules, but you cant force people, humans are rebellious in nature, they want to be free

2 - The problem with paying people with money, is that money have NO VALUE WHAT SO EVER! So what if your a millonaire, if a cop of coffe cost $100k?
One hour of work, should be worth exactly that, one hour of work

3 - So if I come up with the phrase "I would love a cup of coffe" and you came up with the phrase "I would love a cup coffe", but you decided to patent it, i should pay you for using it?? Did you pay the founders of the alphabet, for using their letters in your phrase? No, you only came with that phrase, because the letters was free for you to use
If you used an hour of your time, teaching me your phrase, i would be happy to pay you for your time

4 - No rules, unless agreed upon. It is your "right" as a free human being, to investigate exactly what is in a product, and exactly how it is made, before you decide to buy it. It is also your right, to choose to inform friends/family/strangers about your findings, and you can also choose to inform people who buy it anyway, why exactly you think that is a bad idea, and how and where they can buy an alternative to that product - but hey, a child needs to be payed exactly one hour for an hours work, the same as an adult, so why hire a child in the first place?

Hope that helps and btw, i can see you are concerned about corruption, think about this "in an hierarchy, there will always be a fight to be in the top" if all where equal, there would be no one to corrupt, but yourself - just remember this, even though we are equal, we are not the same

Peace

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Hello Ats members! I have been thinking tonight and a thought process came to my head. This has probably been debated and discussed to death so any insight, proof in history, etc would be great as I do not know whether my ideology is sound.

I believe your ideology, or premise, is basically sound and respects the original philosophy of government, with a few tweaks for modern times.

I believe in limiting the "rights" of the few, to ensure the rights of many.

As a big proponent of natural inalienable rights, this threw me at first, but it may be a matter of defining terms; perhaps natural rights vs. civil rights. Natural rights granted by nature's law that we are all born with and are inalienable, as opposed to those rights granted by government's law that is subject to change. And to be absolutely clear going forward, government has no rights. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Government has only those powers that we the governed consent to give them, as enumerated in the Constitution, according to the Social Contract which demands all government action must be in the best interest of the people, with equal application of the law and no one above the law.

I believe in maximum wages, I believe in small government, I believe in large amounts of power being given to large amounts of people, and very small amounts of power being given to very small amounts of people. What does that look like, though? I am not sure -

I believe that looks like local government over federal government, with the many locally deciding on effective and appropriate governance for their community... as opposed to a few in Washington making laws and rules and regulations for the masses all over the country. Generally speaking, and historically speaking, all governance should be as local as possible, starting with municipal government, through county and state governments, up to the federal level.

-So, first I would apply maximum wages - What would I put as a cap? Probably one-ten million dollars a year. With minimum wage jobs bringing in ~20,000 a year, there's no one that works 500 times harder, let alone more than that, nor anyone who is 500 times a better inventor, or has ideas that are 500 times better than others, etc - Which brings me to my next point.

I prefer a proportionate wage, i.e., tying the lowest paid employee's wage with the highest paid employee's wage by a certain percent. So, for example, the highest paid employee cannot make more than, say, 500%. If the lowest paid employee makes $25,000 per year, then the highest paid employee cannot be paid more than $125,000. And it should be done on a voluntary basis... using our tax and incorporation laws to make it more attractive for a company to want to follow the proportionate wage. So a company/corporation that voluntarily follows the proportionate wage model pays a lower tax rate than the company/corporation that chooses not to. Or we could use incorporation laws to mandate the proportionate wage... if a company wants the special privileges of incorporating, they must pass their good fortune on to the workers who make their profits possible.

I believe patents should be extremely limited. No general or broad patents, no ability to buy a patent only to throw it under the table because it's bad for your business ( GM and water powered cars, anyone? ) I believe that most ideas are already thought of, and implementation does not mean a person should be allowed to have a huge part of a market because their lawyers pushed the paperwork first. I realize copying anothers work exactly should not be okay, at least for a time period, but I truly believe for the most competitive markets, that patents should be very limited.

Many of the founding fathers agreed, especially Thomas Jefferson, who argued the point with Madison as the Constitution was being written. The fruits of the earth belong to all, not to be monopolized by a few, which is what patents do. It was allowed only as a way to temporarily encourage and promote new technology for the benefit of the masses, NOT to lock in unlimited control and profits for the few. There was also an "obvious" clause, which prohibited the patenting of what others would be "obvious" to others as well. So, for example, once cannot patent a peanut butter and jelly sandwich because someone else could just as easily think of making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich as well, and probably have already.

-No imports that are tagged as slave/child-labor, conflict-ridden, etc. If first world nations refused to buy from these people, better work conditions would be mandatory to trade. I'm not sure how this would be enforced and implemented, but this could cause better conditions across the globe.

This was once one of the standards for being a trading partner with the U.S., that labor standards must meet or exceed our own. This was done for both human rights interests, as well as free market interests... it's not fair when American companies must pay their employees a minimum wage, but their foreign competitors do not. Likewise, it is not fair when companies can off-shore their manufacturing and pay slave wages abroad, only to bring those products back to sell on a free market, competing with those companies who paid fair wages according to our labor laws.

I used to believe in capitalism - But even a chance at unlimited wealth, is guaranteed to include extreme corruption.

Not to play semantics, but every economic system is capitalism, as it controls the capital of industry -- cash, goods, labor, etc. In free-market capitalism, the capital is privately owned and distributed, with government's only function protecting the rights of the people -- i.e., if you buy a pound of flour, you get a pound of flour -- on a level playing field.

I no longer believe that the government and corporations can be trusted with any large amount of money or power - As money can buy politicians, and politicians can favor corporations. I believe limiting these two would create a situation better for the huge majority.

Indeed. There is much to be done there. Taking corporate dollars out of the election process would be a great first step. Corporations are not people. Corporations do not have rights, just government granted entitlements. At the same time, we need to take lobbyists and their dollars out of the legislative process.

Hope everyone here at ats has a great Thanksgiving!

Right back atcha

a reply to: Metallicus

"rights" was in quotations in this matter for a reason.

Limiting government and business in such ways as...

Getting rid of pac funds
Ensuring patents cannot be bought to deny products
Ensuring we do not import cheap products which are the results of child sweat shops
Limiting congressional terms.

Things like that are currently "rights" or, something that is allowed to be done, of our government and corporations alike.

a reply to: scorpio84

The majority... As in, 1 percent are billionaires and politicians, and they have the majority of the money and the majority of the control over our every day lives. My op states my ideology may be flawed, but I still assert that something should be done to deny control and power to just 1 percent of the population, and spread it more across the other 99. Certain types of socialism may be wrong, but the current system definitely is not altruistic and caring about the majority. What would you have done?

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Metallicus

"rights" was in quotations in this matter for a reason.

Limiting government and business in such ways as...

Getting rid of pac funds
Ensuring patents cannot be bought to deny products
Ensuring we do not import cheap products which are the results of child sweat shops
Limiting congressional terms.

Things like that are currently "rights" or, something that is allowed to be done, of our government and corporations alike.

Did you even read the answers you got?

You want to be a dictator, and decided what rules YOU want! fine, but your delusional, if you think your some kind of savior, or that you making the world a better place with YOUR rules! Who wants to be ruled by you? name me just 1 person pleace