The Ron Paul that Ron Paul does not want you to know

[Damocles]

IHG, it appears to me that throughout this thread you and Damo have advocated dismantling all the good parts of the New Deal. Even the good parts 90% of people agree on. Like prohibitions of child labor.

I was under the impression that the thread started out with the assertion that Libertarians are for a national prohibition on child labor. Now, it appears clear that the real agenda is to dismantle the New Deal, and perhaps even Teddy Roosevelt's "Square Deal " reforms. Albeit, you craft it in terms that imply the change would be incremental. Lets forget about the temporal aspect. At it's core, the LP wants to return us to the days before FDRs New Deal and TR's Square Deal reforms.

Do you know what life was like for working americans, women, and children before the Square Deal and New Deal reforms?

I'm glad this thread evolved the way it did. Because it says everything about the LP that I knew all along: The LP was a reactionary movement formed in the 1950s, as a counter to New Deal and progressive reforms. Truman's promise of universal healthcare in 1948 must have freaked the fledgling LPs out.

One can cherry pick quotes of Paine or Jefferson, to give weight to the LP's platform. But, it's laughable really. Direct historical analogies from the founders really can't be drawn to any one modern party. But, by the standards of their day, and in the broad sweep of historical context, Paine and Jefferson were radicals. Populists, almost. Personal freedom and liberty figured prominently in their thinking - as it does in all the best progressive thinking. But, as other's have mentioned, the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" individuality of the LP is just code word. It's code to cut the social safety net, reduce taxation to as near zero as possible, and to effectively do away with any real sense of nationhood, community, or the public commons.

It seems to you that way because you refuse to hear that neither of us advocate ending such programs without at least an equal replacement.

It has been repetitive and constant throughout our posts. IH8 has even given the reason that the States can be more effective on certain of the areas than the Federal Government can because of constitutional limitations.

Simply not reading portions of posts is not a form of argument.

And libertarians have been around arguing limited government for centuries they didn't magically appear on the scene in 1950.

 

[Cypress]

It seems to you that way because you refuse to hear that neither of us advocate ending such programs without at least an equal replacement.

There is no "equal" replacement for a national ban on child labor. States can't enact a national ban. I care about children in Mississippi and much as I do children in california. History shows us over and over and over, that rights and prohibitions (that are national or federal in scope) will not be applied equally by different states.

It has been repetitive and constant throughout our posts. IH8 has even given the reason that the States can be more effective on certain of the areas than the Federal Government can because of constitutional limitations.

Simply not reading portions of posts is not a form of argument.

And libertarians have been around arguing limited government for centuries they didn't magically appear on the scene in 1950.

Yes, the word "Libertarian" didn't appear in wide use in the united states until the 1950s. And the Libertarian Party didn't even form until 1971. Simply asserting that the LP is the ideological descendent of Paine and Jefferson, doesn't pass the laugh test.

American Libertarianism, as it was described in the 1950s, was a reaction against the New Deal, and american progressivism. New Deal in particular. The american libertarian philosophy was obssessed with property rights and taxes. That's what it is at it's core: a revolt against the New Deal reforms.


Jefferson took John Lockes quote about the right to "life, liberty and property", and changed it to the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
'
Locke was the "Libertarian".
Jefferson was the progressive.

The US Constitution specifically includes the "general welfare" clause, pertaining to the federal government. That was radical for it's time.

And guess what? When the Confederate Constitution was written, is was almost exactly the same as the US constitution, except they removed the General Welfare clause as a National government function. That would have made Libertarians swoon.

So.....

The confederates removed the general welfare clause from their constitution: specifically elevating states to primacy over the national goverment -- i.e., a libertarians wet dream.

The revolutionary founders included the general welfare clause. More progressive than the confederates

 

[IHateGovernment]

It appears I have a lot to answer on here. I want to give all three of you thorough anwers to your concerns and comments so it will take time.

Expect the standard long winded exhaustive IHG answer.

 

[IHateGovernment]

It's not. Or, at least it depends. Federal labor law has very specific criteria and definations for what businesses are engaged in interstate commerce. They're not stupid IHG. Hot dog stands are a local and state issue. Not an interstate commerce issue.

Yes they do. However when determining business regulations many things are assumed simply by arbitrary characteristics of that business for example its size. There is not a discovery process in which federal agents determine the applicability of susceptibility to federal commerce regulations. They are automatic depending on the size of a business. Thus there can be cases in which business is subject to federal regulations even when it is not constitutionally subject to them.

It is my suggestion that in order to prevent the over reaching extent of such laws that business be subject to interstate commerce regulations based on what class of business it is in not merely by size.

Also that regulation of commerce among the states be tied to parts of business that are related to actual exchanges that occur across state lines and not simply to say that because a business may have as part of its business model interstate trade that all aspects of its business be automatically subject to federal commerce regulation.

Federal labor and commerce laws do NOT apply to all commerce

Agreed but we probably disagree to what extent. I will point to a specific SCOTUS case in the FDR era that I strongly disagree with I would like your opinion. The case is Wickard v. Filburn. To give a brief summary this case had to do with the Agricultural Adjustment act. This law limited the amount of acreage farmers were permitted to grow wheat upon. Mr. Filburn grew an excess amount of that wheat but asserted he is not subject to the law because he grew it for his own private consumption.

The SCOTUS ruled against him and stated that his growing of the wheat could potentially prevent him from buying it on the market to make up for the short fall and thus was also subject to the Agricultural Adjustment act. This is an insane ruling. It almost seems corporatist almost compelling a citizen to prop up business or face legal consequences. Such a decision directly violates the right of Americans to engage in their own home enterprise of sustenance. Basically even subsistence farming is subject to federal regulation.

If that isn’t heavy handed I don’t know what is.

 

[IHateGovernment]

Well, Griswald was ruled on the grounds that it "violated marital privacy" which i imagine laid the groundwork for the Roe decision, and conservatives do not reconize a right to privacy in the constitution. Many call that decision "judicial activism".

I agree with the Griswold decision. I mostly agree with Justice Goldberg’s decision in which he cites the 9th amendment as the source of the right to privacy.

However, the 9th amendment nor any other part of the constitution grants an explicit right to privacy the right is implicit in the ninth and applicable to the fourteenth since the 9th reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This single sentence in the bill of rights is the most powerful law of protection in our country.

However what if I were to tell you that the 9th amendment credibly allows for an interpretation that mandates the federal as well as all state governments must allow for a libertarian like government in that the government cannot deny any right to me that doesn’t by it’s own act violate the right of another under the same protection.

For example simply because there is no enumerated right to allow me to smoke weed doesn’t mean I do not have it, or to walk down the street naked or to open a business and only hire large busted women.

There is nothing in this world that is perfect IHG. You know, "democracy is is the worst form of government accept for all the other forms". Sure, once in a while the feds will lag behind some particularly progressive state, as on medical marijuana. But by and large, they grant freedom.

I don’t demand perfect outcomes we can never have that. But I do not think it unreasonable to have a source of law that is perfectly consistent. I could write a long tome on inconsistency of law in this country. This should be remedied and not merely brushed aside as inconvenient or the pejorative ‘hiding behind the Constitution.’

It is the federal goverment who freed slaves.

Yes via the 13th amendment. I like when the government actually amends the constitution to give it new powers it never had before. You see the government before the 13th never had it and that’s why it was passed. Likewise this is why an amendment was needed to allow prohibition.

Now pertaining to what Cypress said slavery certainly relates to commerce as does trafficking of alcohol. Yet the Congress knew it had to amend the constitution to allow prohibitions on such things. Yet we are to believe that no amendment is needed to empower the federal government to outlaw child labor.

When abolitionists clamored to have an amendment to outlaw slavery by doing so they were not pro-slavery. When the temperance movement clamored to have an amendment to prohibit alcohol they were not pro-alcohol.

Why then by insisting there must also be an amendment allowing prohibition of child-labor by the federal government that I or Ron Paul are falsely and unfairly labeled as pro-child labor?

The government used to pass amendments to expand their power. Outlawing slavery, alcohol, allowing an income tax.

Nowadays it acts like it always had the powers that any current Congress or President says it wants.

We see today the horrible folly of such an outlook has brought us.

I fully support the federal government granting more liberties. However it has to be by the Constitution it can’t simply be done by a legislature. The Congress of the US doesn’t have the power to simply override state laws it doesn’t like.

If they lag behind once in a while, the fact remains that they are usually ahead of the states, and if that has begun to slow in the past 20 years, if we cannot now look to the feds to guarantee freedom for the gays, look to the party of Reagan, look the religious right. I am far more concerned with taking back my government from those freaks. Because you let them have the feds, they will come to take your states. County by county, school board by school board, they will come and take the states. I prefer to fight them over there (DC) and not over here.

This is what I am talking about. Any broad power given without checks against it will some day fall into the hands of your political enemies and then woe be to us. This is why restraint is the wiser course. FDR, Johnson and Clinton’s bid to expand their power and the governments has just as much enabled Bush Jr. to do what he has done as Nixon and Reagan’s actions have.

 

[IHateGovernment]

That's all for tonight I'm afraid it is late. I will answer some more later.

 

[Damocles]

There is no "equal" replacement for a national ban on child labor. States can't enact a national ban. I care about children in Mississippi and much as I do children in california. History shows us over and over and over, that rights and prohibitions (that are national or federal in scope) will not be applied equally by different states.

And time and again it has been stated that neither of us care if the Feds ban child labor in interstate commerce, as they have, however it would be ineffective in many circumstances and thus state laws need to be enacted. You pick this one because you think that all libertarians think that child labor laws are bad. This is the least of the problematic issues with the federal government.

Yes, the word "Libertarian" didn't appear in wide use in the united states until the 1950s. And the Libertarian Party didn't even form until 1971. Simply asserting that the LP is the ideological descendent of Paine and Jefferson, doesn't pass the laugh test.

Oh, I see. So before they had a label they didn't exist? That is ridiculous. Well, unless you want to suggest that because there was no mention of black holes in an astronomy text from the early 1900s they didn't exist until they were named.

American Libertarianism, as it was described in the 1950s, was a reaction against the New Deal, and american progressivism. New Deal in particular. The american libertarian philosophy was obssessed with property rights and taxes. That's what it is at it's core: a revolt against the New Deal reforms.

In many ways I would agree, but in others I would disagree. It was a revolt on more centralization of power, yes. But it wasn't because they were heartless bastards that don't care.

Jefferson took John Lockes quote about the right to "life, liberty and property", and changed it to the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
'
Locke was the "Libertarian".
Jefferson was the progressive.

This is plain silly. He had many "liberal" views, but he believed in strong state authority and was against the centralization of the government in the federal level. He was against higher taxes and, in fact, won running against new taxes when he became the third President. He and Hamilton were consistently at odds, as Hamilton was a Federalist and believed, like the current NeoProg, that all things good should be done at the federal level. He had far more of the current libertarian philosophy, than any "progressive" give the federal government the primary responsibility philosophy.

The US Constitution specifically includes the "general welfare" clause, pertaining to the federal government. That was radical for it's time.

And guess what? When the Confederate Constitution was written, is was almost exactly the same as the US constitution, except they removed the General Welfare clause as a National government function. That would have made Libertarians swoon.

So.....

The confederates removed the general welfare clause from their constitution: specifically elevating states to primacy over the national goverment -- i.e., a libertarians wet dream.

We'll get more into the "wet dream" thing later. I agree that the General Welfare clause allows for many laws that are constitutional, but I believe to be misguided, but it doesn't allow for carte blanche usurpation of powers specifically denied to it in a later Amendment.

Now, just because a law is enacted at the state level doesn't make it libertarian, it isn't a "wet dream" to have such done. The federal government has its place, american libertarians just believe it should be limited by the document that elected officials swear to uphold.

The revolutionary founders included the general welfare clause. More progressive than the confederates

They also included a ban on specific powers to the federal government, and as an Amendment which specifically defines where the General Welfare clause can be applied. If the power was not specifically assigned to the Federal Government, they wrote and 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the States agreed, that that power would belong to the States or to the Individual. It didn't exempt that proscription by saying, "except in cases of General Welfare". Ignoring such Amendments because they are unfortunately against your belief that the General Welfare clause covers all bases is simply pretending that some actual facts don't exist. Or it is showing that you don't quite understand how the Amendment process actually changes the document, this one specifically defined where the powers of the federal government lay, it shows they had an understanding how it may be applied incorrectly using the General Welfare clause and closed up that "loophole".

 

[Cancel7]

Well, Griswald was ruled on the grounds that it "violated marital privacy" which i imagine laid the groundwork for the Roe decision, and conservatives do not reconize a right to privacy in the constitution. Many call that decision "judicial activism".

I agree with the Griswold decision. I mostly agree with Justice Goldberg’s decision in which he cites the 9th amendment as the source of the right to privacy.

However, the 9th amendment nor any other part of the constitution grants an explicit right to privacy the right is implicit in the ninth and applicable to the fourteenth since the 9th reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This single sentence in the bill of rights is the most powerful law of protection in our country.

However what if I were to tell you that the 9th amendment credibly allows for an interpretation that mandates the federal as well as all state governments must allow for a libertarian like government in that the government cannot deny any right to me that doesn’t by it’s own act violate the right of another under the same protection.

For example simply because there is no enumerated right to allow me to smoke weed doesn’t mean I do not have it, or to walk down the street naked or to open a business and only hire large busted women.

There is nothing in this world that is perfect IHG. You know, "democracy is is the worst form of government accept for all the other forms". Sure, once in a while the feds will lag behind some particularly progressive state, as on medical marijuana. But by and large, they grant freedom.

I don’t demand perfect outcomes we can never have that. But I do not think it unreasonable to have a source of law that is perfectly consistent. I could write a long tome on inconsistency of law in this country. This should be remedied and not merely brushed aside as inconvenient or the pejorative ‘hiding behind the Constitution.’

It is the federal goverment who freed slaves.

Yes via the 13th amendment. I like when the government actually amends the constitution to give it new powers it never had before. You see the government before the 13th never had it and that’s why it was passed. Likewise this is why an amendment was needed to allow prohibition.

Now pertaining to what Cypress said slavery certainly relates to commerce as does trafficking of alcohol. Yet the Congress knew it had to amend the constitution to allow prohibitions on such things. Yet we are to believe that no amendment is needed to empower the federal government to outlaw child labor.

When abolitionists clamored to have an amendment to outlaw slavery by doing so they were not pro-slavery. When the temperance movement clamored to have an amendment to prohibit alcohol they were not pro-alcohol.

Why then by insisting there must also be an amendment allowing prohibition of child-labor by the federal government that I or Ron Paul are falsely and unfairly labeled as pro-child labor?

The government used to pass amendments to expand their power. Outlawing slavery, alcohol, allowing an income tax.

Nowadays it acts like it always had the powers that any current Congress or President says it wants.

We see today the horrible folly of such an outlook has brought us.

I fully support the federal government granting more liberties. However it has to be by the Constitution it can’t simply be done by a legislature. The Congress of the US doesn’t have the power to simply override state laws it doesn’t like.

If they lag behind once in a while, the fact remains that they are usually ahead of the states, and if that has begun to slow in the past 20 years, if we cannot now look to the feds to guarantee freedom for the gays, look to the party of Reagan, look the religious right. I am far more concerned with taking back my government from those freaks. Because you let them have the feds, they will come to take your states. County by county, school board by school board, they will come and take the states. I prefer to fight them over there (DC) and not over here.

This is what I am talking about. Any broad power given without checks against it will some day fall into the hands of your political enemies and then woe be to us. This is why restraint is the wiser course. FDR, Johnson and Clinton’s bid to expand their power and the governments has just as much enabled Bush Jr. to do what he has done as Nixon and Reagan’s actions have.

I don't know, very little of this makes sense to me, but I was up most of the night working on something, so it's probably my brain.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. "

After this amendment was passed IHG, were some citizens still denied the right to vote? In fact, weren't citizens all over the South denied this right by their states?

In fact, it was meaningless until passage of the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Bills. That was congressional legislation. And it was this congressional legislation which gave blacks the real right to vote. Still, they fought and killed to prevent it, and LBJ sent troops. Eisenhower had to send troops to enforce Brown.

Richard Russell was perhaps our biggest state's rights champion, and he used them and hid behind them in order to deny Southern blacks their civil rights. He was nothing but a dirty white supremist, as all of the Southern state's rights people were. You are describing something that might sound good on paper, but our own history has show us does not work and does evil.

It was the liberals, using the powers of the federal government who gained these freedoms and these rights. I do not know if they would have had the belly for the fight if blacks themselves weren't putting their own bodies on the line and dying down there, right on television. But one way or the other, it was the federal government who intervened, and often through the evils of legislation.

Why did Ron Paul vote against the resolution on the Civil rights act, and claim that it did nothing to enhance individual freedom? Is the moron under the impression that amending the Constitution was effective? Is he stupid or just another racist?

You know darned well that states and local governments in the south were always used to deny blacks benefits, including the benefits whites enjoyed from the New Deal. That is why they insisted it be adminstered at the local and not federal level. It's outright evil, and considering that the new deal was the most massive transfer of wealth in our history, and blacks were mainly shut out of it, and that it built the modern day white middle class, we owe them something for that.

I just cannot believe anyone can even argue these things. They are as plain as the nose on your faces.

 

[blackascoal]

Wonderful post. IHG said before that he can understand my "rooting for you" over him. So I want to tell him, I am not rooting. These are my beliefs and you state them so beautifully. You are a great addition to this board.

I did not come by my beliefs casually, or without thought. I was a middle of the road democrat who leaned liberal. But I understood little and because I read a lot of history, thought I knew much. Until I met a man who was studying for a ph.d in black history and from him, I began to read history as written by the great black intellectuals, W.E.B. Dubois for instance. There was a time I dismissed the very idea of reperations and did not understand the black American reaction to the OJ verdict. But not only did reading the black intellectuals stun me with the poetry and beauty of their writing, but I began to understand and it has held me in good stead. For instance, from that I came to understand that you cannot know American history until you read black history written by people who are not white, and since that is true, it must also be true that you cannot understand American feminism until you read black intellectual feminists, and this turned out to be true as well. (you can think you know something about second wave feminism from reading Friedan, but she is soley about white, upper middle class women, and does not address race or class in any meaningful way whatsoever) I also became nearly obsessed with the presidency and tragedy of LBJ, and have read volumes and volumes about the civil rights movement, including the fascinating relationship between he and MLK.

The problem comes I think because Damo and IHG take it personally, as if in describing libertarian ideology, you are describing them personally. But here you make it clear that you are not. I am convinced that neither of them are racist, sexist or heartless...just misguided.

But what a great thread, really!

I think I love you.

 

[Cancel7]

I think I love you.

Thank you...but it'll pass. I'm often cranky!

 

[blackascoal]

IHG, it appears to me that throughout this thread you and Damo have advocated dismantling all the good parts of the New Deal. Even the good parts 90% of people agree on. Like prohibitions of child labor.

I was under the impression that the thread started out with the assertion that Libertarians are for a national prohibition on child labor. Now, it appears clear that the real agenda is to dismantle the New Deal, and perhaps even Teddy Roosevelt's "Square Deal " reforms. Albeit, you craft it in terms that imply the change would be incremental. Lets forget about the temporal aspect. At it's core, the LP wants to return us to the days before FDRs New Deal and TR's Square Deal reforms.

Do you know what life was like for working americans, women, and children before the Square Deal and New Deal reforms?

I'm glad this thread evolved the way it did. Because it says everything about the LP that I knew all along: The LP was a reactionary movement formed in the 1950s, as a counter to New Deal and progressive reforms. Truman's promise of universal healthcare in 1948 must have freaked the fledgling LPs out.

One can cherry pick quotes of Paine or Jefferson, to give weight to the LP's platform. But, it's laughable really. Direct historical analogies from the founders really can't be drawn to any one modern party. But, by the standards of their day, and in the broad sweep of historical context, Paine and Jefferson were radicals. Populists, almost. Personal freedom and liberty figured prominently in their thinking - as it does in all the best progressive thinking. But, as other's have mentioned, the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" individuality of the LP is just code word. It's code to cut the social safety net, reduce taxation to as near zero as possible, and to effectively do away with any real sense of nationhood, community, or the public commons.

Well said .. and your reference to Roosevelt's Square Deal is perfect, something I had not considered.

As I've said before, one of the reasons why LP ideology is not applicable to today's society and will never be accepted by the majority is because it is ahistorical and devoid of any memory of when "the market" had a free hand.

It's singular fixation on government is bad pays no tribute to, and dishonors the courage, work, and commitment of leaders like Roosevelt and politicians like Senator Dirksen who put away ideology, personal gain, and peer pressure to cross the aisle and put America and Americans first.

Bad government is bad, but good government has made us the Americans we are today .. which is another truth that LP ideology rejects.

WE ARE AMERICANS, and we are in this together. We are not a bunch of disconnected individuals standing around with guns trying to protect our own piece of turf or "property". We are Americans .. and I do not give in to the right-wing notion of goosesteppin' "patriotism" that says we must do as we're told. But I do believe in and strongly support our connectivity to each other, our reliance on each other, and our history together.

Yes, our brave men and women in uniform are in Iraq dying for oil. But we shouldn't get it twisted and blame them for putting their lives on the line for what they percieve as duty, commitment, and responsibility.

 

[blackascoal]

Thank you...but it'll pass. I'm often cranky!

That's ok .. when I find you cranky I'll just go to my room.

You made another very salient point in your post that I meant to comment on.

None of this is personal. I think IHG and Damo are good people as you do. But Ron Paul is running for President and libertarian ideology is on stage. In my opinion, neither Paul nor libertarian ideology stand up to debate and close scrutiny, but I'm willing to talk about it. I appreciate both of them standing in to challenge and their civility in doing so. But after 8 years of the worst president in US history, we can ill afford not to challenge and honestly debate any person or ideology that seeks to creep into American politics.

As my father used to say, "If you can't defend what you say you believe, why do you believe it?".

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Is it just me, or does this thread seem a wee bit long?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Another example of hiding behind the Constitution.

It made good sense, good policy, and is good for American history and people.

His vote against it 424-1

His vote against civil rights 414-1

That is unintelligent

I don't agree with his votes, but it doesn't make a person unintelligent to vote in a way that's are unpopular.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This was just Ron Paul being an ass.

The Congressional Gold Medal of Honor has been given by Congress to people throughout our 200 year history. Including George Washington.

He stated he voted against it because it would cost money.... apparently he was trying to make a davey crockett type stunt. Didn't work like Davey Crockett's did. He asked congress to pay for it themselves... I don't think anyone listened. You can't call the kid unprincipled, at least.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Awesome! You said this so well. Frankly, I get real tired of Libertarians claiming to be the direct ideological descendants of Paine, Madison, and Jefferson.

As you so clearly state, it just ain't so.

Yes it is, Cypress .

The day you accept that is the day you'll finally understand.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Libertarians are hostile to the New Deal. In fact, opposition to the New Deal, is why I think the american libertarian party came into existance in the 1950s.

Where do you think prohibitions against child labor came from? From the progressives and the New Deal.

I've never met a Libetarian who didn't want to overthrow the New Deal, and return the country to the alleged constitutional principles, prior to the New Deal.

The Libertarian party didn't exist in the 1950's. I've met few people who wanted to overthrow the more beneficial measures in the New Deal, but the PWA and the CCC were stupid, and the NRA and the AAA were practically criminal.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Einstein wrote extensively on what he believed to be our socio-ethical responsibilities to each other, and the limitations of science.

Why Socialism?
By Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

excerpt --

"Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."

http://www.bestcyrano.org/mrEinstein5.49.htm

The man was absolutely brilliant and way ahead of his time.

It shows numurous flaws in his logic. The very fact that none of what he said would come to pass because of technological progress has, in fact, come to pass should be enough in itself to disprove him.

There was an economist passing through China, who noticed a bunch of workers digging out a hole for a dam with shovels. Whenever he asked why they weren't using digging machiens, the manager anwered that that would take away jobs.

So the economist replied, "Oh, I thought it was a dam you wanted. If you wanted jobs, take away their shovels and give them spoons."

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

According to the libertarians I've met in cyberspace, the Federal Government has NO authority to place a prohibition on child labor. It's not one of the "enumerated rights" given to Congress.

Now that I think about it, I can't even remember where Congress's right to regulate labour is established from...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

According to the libertarians I've met in cyberspace, the Federal Government has NO authority to place a prohibition on child labor. It's not one of the "enumerated rights" given to Congress.

that's correct. However any state could pass such a law. However I doubt many want to focus on repealing such a law. I am sure every state has also outlawed child labor since even the liberal decisions of the SCOTUS have said that interstate commerce can only apply to companies meeting a certain size.

We have also had this debate before Cypress. There isn't any part of the constitution that allows it. As we discussed the general welfare clause has to do with appropriation of funds not coercive law. This power may come from interstate commerce regulation powers however employment practices and commerce are not necessarily interstate in nature.

Well, if the constitution doesn't allow it, it should be ammended.