Originally Posted by ut0pia
.First of all, the founding fathers created a great consitution that is an incredible foundation for the government, I commend them for that. Second, the constitution can be amended, therefore they knew very well that as time progresses new ideas will outweigh the old ones and we will need some modification. I think that it has been proven that 100% free market economy is not the best thing to have. During the time when the founding fathers wrote the constitution that was the best thing, Adam Smith was the most popular philospher, etc...But you cannot deny that free market capitalism does have some very negative side effects. This has been acknowledged by many world famous sociologists and if you deny that then there is something wrong with you. I just think we can modify our way of handling the economy and we should. I don't mean that we should go to communism, adopt a dictator who is in complete control of the economy and sets prices and quantity of goods to be produced. No, by all means that is not what I am saying. I just believe that the government needs to have a little more intervention than it does presently..
Actually, I agree with this in some ways. I don't agree with your premises; I don't agree with your logic; but I do agree with your conclusions -- to a degree. Go figure.
First premise: The US Constitution. It says nothing about the economy. The Constitution gives the people the freedom to determine their own means of exchanging goods and services. If the people feel the need for a change in the economic system, the Constitution says the people have the right to do that. The people have chosen capitalism, because that's what works best. Free markets and capitalism aren't the same thing either. Capitalism refers to the ownership of the means of production; free markets refers to how people exchange goods and services. Yes, of course we need oversight and regulation of both. Oversight and regulation of capitalism to avoid the excesses and misuse brought about by greed. Oversight and regulation of markets for the same reasons. But the two are separate issues. We need oversight and regulation of markets so that we have fair
trade. But we do NOT need the government in the business of owning and operating businesses.
Second premise: Ammendments. Ammendments to the Constitution cover situations that the Constitution didn't cover. Ammendments do not modify
the Constitution. They are add-ons. Some to extend coverage (several about voting). An ammendment can get more specific than the original Consitution. (Presidential terms) An ammendment can modify or change or cancel an earlier ammendment
. (prohibition) Therefore the Constitution doesn't need to be modified for changing ideas. Ideas are just ideas. They come and go. If there's something new that the original Constitution and its ammendments left out, then an ammendment covers that. There's a whole thread devoted to this somewhere back in this forum.
Next premise: dictatorships. Communism doesn't imply a dictatorship. In fact, the opposite. Communism envisions a society in which there aren't an elite class wielding power. In Communism, everybody is equal. The Soviet system was seen as a "bridge" from capitalism to pure communism. Of course, it didn't work, because the whole concept of communism doesn't take human nature into account.
Conclusions: yes, there needs to be some changes in the way the economy is handled; yes there needs to be government regulation and oversight. But oversight is not participation
, and that's what they're doing now. Actually, the government getting involved with the businesses they regulate diminishes the disinterested position overseers and regulators should have. They're producing a conflict of interest. So, while I can agree to some extent on the end, I can't agree on the means.