I know what the re-education camps are for

You know the re-education camps Alex Jones is going nuts about ever since he found the U.S. Army document that outlines the implementation of the so called re-education camps? Scary stuff if you believe Alex Jones.

Anyway I think I know what they are for... They are for the students of NY Times Contributor Louis Michael Seidman. Apparently this person taught constitutional law for almost 40 years. that's a long time!

And he has a plan for how we can achieve real freedom.

I think it is in everyone's best interest to find and re- educate every student that took his class at any time of the last 40 years.

reply to post by whatsecret


From your own source, and I must say that I quit reading at this point........

Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.

Those of us who realize that our Constitution has been flagrantly violated by our elected officials, might tend to be as offended as I am by this ridiculous concept......

Not seeing any growth or prosper for the working poor in this country. If I am wrong OP, please enlighten me...

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by whatsecret

 

From your own source, and I must say that I quit reading at this point........

Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.

Those of us who realize that our Constitution has been flagrantly violated by our elected officials, might tend to be as offended as I am by this ridiculous concept......

Not seeing any growth or prosper for the working poor in this country. If I am wrong OP, please enlighten me...

I am not a constitutional expert or anything even close to it, but here's what I think..

The Constitution may be and should be amended if any part of it allows violations of the right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of any human being. But We the People should decide what needs to be adjusted. Unfortunately our leaders violated the Constitution not change it. And what we get as a result is Wars and things like the Patriot Act. So to me it appears as if the flagrant violations DID produced chaos or totalitarianism.

reply to post by whatsecret

I am not a constitutional expert or anything even close to it, but here's what I think..

The Constitution may be and should be amended if any part of it allows violations of the right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of any human being. But We the People should decide what needs to be adjusted. Unfortunately our leaders violated the Constitution not change it. And what we get as a result is Wars and things like the Patriot Act. So to me it appears as if the flagrant violations DID produced chaos or totalitarianism.

No need to be an expert my friend!



The Constitution is written in a very simple manner in which everyone can understand! It isn't written like our current government writes our laws so that you need a lawyer and a staff of people to spend hours trying to decipher what the laws actually means.

I would really suggest that you read our Constitution and the Bill of Rights a few times before you allow some rag like the one in your post, try to tell you our Constitution is not working and needs to be changed....

Originally posted by whatsecret
The Constitution may be and should be amended if any part of it allows violations of the right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of any human being.

Then the constitution should be amended to make capitalism unconstitutional.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by whatsecret
The Constitution may be and should be amended if any part of it allows violations of the right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of any human being.

Then the constitution should be amended to make capitalism unconstitutional.

We should try capitalism first.

reply to post by seeker1963

I would really suggest that you read our Constitution and the Bill of Rights a few times before you allow some rag like the one in your post, try to tell you our Constitution is not working and needs to be changed....

That's why the idea of this guy teaching the Constitution is a little disturbing.

Originally posted by whatsecret
We should try capitalism first.

Where have you been? Capitalism replaced feudalism 250 years ago.

History of the term capitalism

The esteemed French historian Fernand Braudel traces the history of the use and development of the term capitalism in volume II of his three volume history of capitalism, Civilization and Capitalism. According to Braudel, the first identified use of the term capitalist was in 1633. By the late 1700s it had come into use as a name for private handlers of money for private financial gain.

In 1850, Louis Blanc defined capitalism as "the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others." Proudhon later defined it as an "Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour."

Adam Smith published his seminal thesis The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Clearly the term capitalism was unknown to him. Furthermore, since Smith had a strong aversion to financial speculation and any concentration of monopoly power he would have been a strong critic of capitalism.

resurgence.opendemocracy.net...

If you want to learn about the Constitution from someone who has been teaching it for years, watch Michael Badnarik's videos on youtube. He was the Libertarian Party nominee for POTUS in 2004.
.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by whatsecret
We should try capitalism first.

Where have you been? Capitalism replaced feudalism 250 years ago.

History of the term capitalism

The esteemed French historian Fernand Braudel traces the history of the use and development of the term capitalism in volume II of his three volume history of capitalism, Civilization and Capitalism. According to Braudel, the first identified use of the term capitalist was in 1633. By the late 1700s it had come into use as a name for private handlers of money for private financial gain.

In 1850, Louis Blanc defined capitalism as "the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others." Proudhon later defined it as an "Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour."

Adam Smith published his seminal thesis The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Clearly the term capitalism was unknown to him. Furthermore, since Smith had a strong aversion to financial speculation and any concentration of monopoly power he would have been a strong critic of capitalism.

resurgence.opendemocracy.net...

In my lifetime we had no capitalism.

Real Capitalism: The Idea

Befor­e the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s, countries like Britain and the United States had true capitalist economies. With industrialization, though, came sweat shops, social protest and resulting government intervention in the form of fair labor laws. That's when real capitalism ended.

reply to post by METACOMET

If you want to learn about the Constitution from someone who has been teaching it for years, watch Michael Badnarik's videos on youtube. He was the Libertarian Party nominee for POTUS in 2004.

I think I failed to show that I was sarcastic in the OP.

What I am saying is that this guy was probably brainwashing people for 40 years.

I totally disagree with what he wrote in NY Times.

reply to post by whatsecret


Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. A term coined by socialists.

There are no rules other than those imposed on it by governments. To say what capitalism is, other than it's a private property economy, is nonsense.

Before the industrial revolution? Capitalism started right before the industrial revolution, and was the reason it happened. It did not change capitalism, it still remains the private ownership of the means of production, the predominant economy the world over.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. A term coined by socialists.

There are no rules other than those imposed on it by governments. To say what capitalism is, other than it's a private property economy, is nonsense.

Before the industrial revolution? Capitalism started right before the industrial revolution, and was the reason it happened. It did not change capitalism, it still remains the private ownership of the means of production, the predominant economy the world over.

The system that existed in America throughout my entire life is called Crony capitalism. Let's try the real one and see if it should be declared unconstitutional.

Originally posted by whatsecret
The system that existed in America throughout my entire life is called Crony capitalism.

Capitalism is crony. It started when land owners, due to their close relationship with government, had laws changed to deny the use of their land to the commoners. That is what lead to the change from feudalism to capitalism.

Capitalists and government have always had a close relationship. Calling it crony is just making empty excuses.

In a capitalist economy money rules, not governments. Real power comes from wealth not votes.

reply to post by ANOK

In a capitalist economy money rules, not governments. Real power comes from wealth not votes.

I am sorry that you feel that way but I respectfully disagree. My understanding of a capitalist society is when wealth is regulated by the free market, when there;s a demand there's supply, government has no role in it. I believe in liberty for all people to pursue happiness, and the only law that should be enforced is to do no harm to others while you pursue your happiness.

If the government has no product to sell in the form of special interest regulations then a free market can exist and people will regulate it by competing for better and/or cheaper product. That's capitalism the way I see it.

Happy New Year!

reply to post by ANOK

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

today, every business, government, and individual is a 'corporate fiction'

that is the opposite of 'private ownership'.

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
today, every business, government, and individual is a 'corporate fiction'

that is the opposite of 'private ownership'.

Corporations are privately owned, not owned by the workers, so yes they are capitalist.

Corporations are how capitalists protect their personal wealth. By incorporating a bushiness owner does not lose their personal wealth, or property, if their bossiness fails, or is sued.

So yes corporations are a construct of capitalism. Private owners protecting their personal assets. It is also a way for capitalists to increase their power, one business on it's own has less power than many businesses incorporated, giving capitalist owners more power to lobby government.

As I said already there are no rules to what capitalists can do, the only thing that gives it rules is government.

The first corporation was the Dutch East India company, who had a state sanctioned monopoly on exploiting Asia.

If you want to support capitalism you should really learn what it is mate.