So let me get this straight. You're saying that our choices are to be enslaved by our own rich and powerful, or enslaved by those of a foreign country, right?

Frankly, I don't see much to choose from between those two alternatives, or any reason to prefer one of them over the other. I think instead I'll choose to believe you're talking out your ass, and pursue what I know is right instead of what YOU say is necessary.

??? How exactly are you "getting this straight"? Maybe you two have history, maybe I shouldn't butt in, but his post neither states nor implies the dilemma you're posing.

[QUOTE=htperr6565;1479055]I give up. U-N-C-L-E.

You are free to believe whatever you want. Maybe, if you have time, you should do a little research on government waste and see how bad it is.

Maybe I already know how bad it is, and object only to your proposed solution to it.

do you know how to answer questions?

do you or do you not see the Social security program as waste?

and, for the love of God, learn how to use the simple quoting mechanism PROPERLY.

__________________

Mr. Davenport is fairly consistently an advocate for the rich, for redistribution of wealth upwards, and for government of, by, and for the corporate interests. In that context, I was responding to his phrase "an authority elected, empowered, and defined by the needy." This is a code phrase for a government that serves the public good, rather than the selfish interests of the rich. (Not that he would acknowledge any distinction between those two.) His implication is that if we have a government that genuinely serves the public good, it will turn us into weak-kneed sissies and we'll be conquered by someone else.

To the extent the government serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful, it reduces everyone else to the servants of those interests. That is anathema to me, everything I oppose in a nutshell. I find nothing to choose between being a slave to American rich people, and being a slave to those from another country. Slavery is slavery.

You have already admitted numerous times here, that you lean towards socialism and support world government. We are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. You see, I actually believe in individual liberty and l imited government and you do not.

Period.

Slavery is exactly what you are going to get from all the social policies you support. The American people are going to be slaves to the national debt, all because of people like you who think it is o.k. that ..........

Slightly over half of all Americans – 52.6 percent – now receive significant income from government programs, according to an analysis by Gary Shilling, an economist in Springfield, N.J. That's up from 49.4 percent in 2000 and far above the 28.3 percent of Americans in 1950. If the trend continues, the percentage could rise within ten years to pass 55 percent, where it stood in 1980 on the eve of President's Reagan's move to scale back the size of government.

Mr. Shilling's analysis found that about 1 in 5 Americans hold a government job or a job reliant on federal spending. A similar number receive Social Security or a government pension. About 19 million others get food stamps, 2 million get subsidized housing, and 5 million get education grants. For all these categories, Mr. Shilling counted dependents as well as the direct recipients of government income.

As US tax rates drop, government's reach grows | csmonitor.com

Talk about slavery. When the government controls your income, or a large portion of your income, how is that not slavery?

Or, it could be "code" for a government that redistributes wealth in response to democratic mandate. Sounds more like he's alluding to the spirit of Franklin's famous quote:

Oh, I know he was, but Franklin was obviously wrong. The original redistribution of wealth happened upward. Redistribution of wealth downward was a later adaptation to try to ameliorate some of the bad effects.

Your mistake lies in thinking that what you mean by limited government actually serves the cause of individual liberty. I believe in individual liberty, too, which is why I DON'T believe in keeping the government small and weak.

Not that that's even an option. An industrial economy requires a strong government, and the only question thereafter is whose interests it shall serve.

Heh... Franklin didn't say who would benefit. That's my principle beef with the welfare state. The rich will always be more effective at manipulating government to their ends. That's why a government that presumes to control our income is a mistake.

Our US Constitution illustrated the concept of object orientation, before it was a practical technological reality .

I think the general government of the Union should be one that is limited by function; as may be inferred from Madison's argument.

We would not have as many problems now, if we had followed our Constitution better.

More developed infrastructure can lead to a more developed political-economy.

Fantasy.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

Eliminating a poverty of lucre in our republic could compensate for that, in a more democratic tradition concerning money-based markets and political-economies.

The same can be said of money based markets, and political-economies that employ money-based markets as a form of legal tender and medium of exchange in socially acceptable, market based transactions.