Governments and Monopolistic Control

[Vincent L. Guarisco]

Don't be shy: Do you agree with this or not? If so, how can we achieve this goal?

Governments are usually formed to coordinate and control people. There are two primary forms of government Socialist or Capitalist while Governance is deployed in three primary fashions (and combinations of all):

Dictatorships:
The people have no say in governance.

Democracies:
The people have complete say in governance.

Republics:
The people elect representatives for governance.

"It is not necessary monopolies that are the problem, but corrupt monopolies that are the problem.” – SOC

“The larger an enterprise, the greater the chance of corruption within that enterprise.” – SOC

Governments form basically to defend against or create monopolies that control the distribution of wealth and freedoms. Corrupt monopolies form the underlying basis for almost every revolution. Revolutions from the French Aristocracy; the British Crown, the Russian Tsar and the Chinese Boxer & Cultural Revolution all fought the monopolistic control of a detached government.

Communists, like the Republican Americans and the Socialist French all sought to replace corrupt monopolistic governments. Unfortunately, history tends to show that one corrupt monopoly is often traded out for another. Jefferson, one of the U.S. founding fathers, went as far as to suggested that a revolution every 20 years was necessary to prevent the government from getting out of control.

In the United States, the Founding Fathers recognized many of the critical issues that caused corruption of government. The U.S. Constitution attempted to eliminate or reduce the tendency of a government to become corrupt. Some of the key tenants to the U.S. Constitution are:

"We The People": Government by the people for the people:

Minimalist federated government.

No taxation without representation.

No direct tax and no inter state tax.

A dual path judicial system, one based on elected judges the other on a jury: A judicial system depending on a randomly selected jury of peers selected from the middle part of society that judged both the law and the facts (The concept of judges judging the admissibility of evidence in the U.S. Courts is utterly foreign to the construct of Trial By Jury under the Constitution.)

Locally Elected and controlled police (Sheriff)
- we the people are the police, not they the government.

Locally Elected and controlled Prosecutor (District Attorney)

Locally Elected and controlled Judges

English Common Law.
- A Codeless legal system where the laws are written on the hearts of the people founded on Biblical Law.

A well armed people's militia and the right to bear arms. And a government controlled army only in times of war and never to be formed for more than two years.
- The construct for military was not based on a professional army, but rather a well armed public. California's constitution even abolishes any standing army in the state in times of peace: ARTICLE I. Declaration of Rights Sec. 12: "The military shall be subordinate to the civil power. No standing army shall be kept up by this State in time of peace; and in time of war no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years."
- The 2nd Amendment grants "we the people" the right to bear arms. This implies that if the government has atomic weapons, then we the people also are entitled to atomic weapons. Consider how quickly our government would abolish atomic weapons under such a construct. The purpose of 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the government is never more powerful than "we the people".

[Geomatic]

Low taxes only equate to freedom if you are rich, ask any working class person who becomes disabled, they will tell you. There needs to be a safety net around for situations like this. I would rather pony up the bread then see homeless people on the streets, and hard working people who become disabled through no fault of their own impoverished.

I find the right to bear arms problematic, just look at Americas insanely high murder rate, most committed using guns. That said I feel I should have the right to defend myself and my family with deadly force if need be. I get your point but wonder if people would be able to handle that kind of responsibility, the sound of gun fire that rings out in large American cities every night tells me otherwise.

As for the rest of it right on. I like how your not afraid of a little criticism, seems like a lot of the people around here and the web in general can't handle a friendly disagreement or anybody in general that doesn't fully and totally agree with their point of view. This is after all the very essence of Democracy, people disagree on various issues but vote for the party that best represents their views. Consensus is what is needed not commitment to some unwavering ideology. Peace have a good day.

[Geomatic]

I posted the Constitution as a discussion in case we ever need to refer to it. I'm Canadian by the way so I need to reread it from time to time.

I am not sure about the Obama birth certificate thing whats the deal with that if you have the time?

"I am not saying there isn't good aspects of capitalism and socialism but socialism has failed numerous times in other societies."

I agree totally, the main thing is that people need to decide every Federal election what the balance between the right and the left should be. It should be up to us.


Personally in a ideal state, I would like to see some safety net so that those who can not work can retain some semblance of dignity. But in general the state should not interfere in the affairs of the individual. If you actions do not hurt others they should be legal.


The problem throughout the West and this is a international problem not just a American one, Is the co option of the electoral process by corporations and special interest groups. If a politician want's to get elected he needs these groups to obtain the funds needed for his campaign. Corporations are not giving this money out for free, they expect something back in return. Nearly everybody in the US Congress now days is a millionaire, don't know about you but I am not a millionaire and not sure that millionaires understand the daily lives of us working folk.


The federal government needs to supply the income used to fund election campaigns, having Corporations, Business interests and special interests funding the campaigns just leads to corruption and politicians not serving the interests of the people.

The two party system in the USA is stagnating, I think new parties are needed both on the left and the right. Just my two cents though bear in mind I am not a American.

[Geomatic]

"A well armed people's militia and the right to bear arms. And a government controlled army only in times of war and never to be formed for more than two years.
- The construct for military was not based on a professional army, but rather a well armed public. California's constitution even abolishes any standing army in the state in times of peace: ARTICLE I. Declaration of Rights Sec. 12: "The military shall be subordinate to the civil power. No standing army shall be kept up by this State in time of peace; and in time of war no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years."
- The 2nd Amendment grants "we the people" the right to bear arms. This implies that if the government has atomic weapons, then we the people also are entitled to atomic weapons. Consider how quickly our government would abolish atomic weapons under such a construct. The purpose of 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the government is never more powerful than "we the people"."

"This implies that if the government has atomic weapons, then we the people also are entitled to atomic weapons. " This is what i've been saying and I have been attacked for saying it here and elsewhere.

So what your saying correct me if I am wrong is that the people should have the same level of arms as the government has. So of course implementing this as it is implied in the constitution would mean that every citizen should have access to atomic weapons. Which of course implies the United States would have to disarm as the idea of every citizen having atomic weapons is just plain suicidal.

So supposing that the Us government says okay were going to abide by the constitution to the letter, this implies they would have to do some massive disarmament, I would imagine they would have to strip the military down to say just guns or something atomic weapons would have to go. Sounds find to me but the moment you did you that the government would be out gunned so to speak by North Korea, Russia and any other country with atomic weapons for that matter.

I guess my question to is this how would you apply the said amendment in this day and age without exposing the US to possible invasion and stop the Us from being threatened by countries that retained atomic weapons. The troubling thing for me is that well I basically agree with you about the right to bear arms, this would only really be practical if all the other countries of the world agreed to the same armament level as the US.

What I am trying to say it that the amendment definitely made sense at the time it was written but the military situation has changed substantially over time.

Would you simply scale down the military leaving the US open for potential invasion?
Would you change the amendment to make it more fitting for the modern era?
Would you allow every citizen atomic weapons?

I didn't respond to this part of your argument earlier because I wanted to do some research into the constitution first. I agree with your interpretation of the amendment 100% and I think that I understand what the authors were trying to accomplish when they wrote it.

The only question is how to implement it in this day and age? After all what point is the freedom gained if say Russia simply uses their new found military advantage to invade the United States. You would loss what you've gained.

This is a really tough issue some very tricky intellectual issues are raised. Personally I am totally at a loss as to what I would do. But I think the concerns raised above are valid ones. Remember what happened with appeasement and military reductions before World War Two, I am sure you would agree the results where not positive. There is definitely a disadvantages to having a weak military and disadvantages to having to powerful of one.

Just curious what your thoughts are?