so where in the constitution does it say America will have a capitalist economy?

[rurallib]

I hear all the time that forcing people to buy health insurance isn't in the constitution.
Maybe so, but there is a whole lot that is not in the constitution, to wit our economic structure.
Or maybe I am wrong.
Is capitalism as our economic structure any place in the constitution? Constitution only. That is what is always cited by the GoOPers.

[HereSince1628]

1. The old argument is "pursuit of happiness" in the declaration of independence

now, it's true that the conservatives dismiss this document when they choose, but they also invoke it when it suites their need.

[B Calm]

15. The pursuit of happiness would require good health. . .

[HereSince1628]

19. Only if we impose the values of 2010 onto 1776

The way it has been interpreted for the past 25 years, if not longer, is the pursuit of wealth.

I wouldn't try to shit you on that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Well they'd have a small point

not that they'd know that... I mean that requires readying and shit.

The Pursuit of Happiness comes straight, intellectually that is, from Locke's "On Government," and the phrase Pursuit of Wealth. Yes, our Founders were members of the John Locke fan club.

Ah those years of having those intellectual discussions with people WHO DID HAVE A CLUE.

Of course this is also an era when the founders read Adam Smith "The Wealth of Nations," and applied it's principles to the emerging national economy, a term I use loosely here. Never mind that modern right wingers do not realize that Adam Smith (yep famous for using ONCE the hand of the marketplace in the whole 3,000 page work), was also for the destruction of monopolies, tariffs and protection of national industries. That is like a huge secret to these guys.

Why I say... sure I'd LIKE to actually have a Capitalist Economy. I am sure Mr. Smith is rolling in grave going... NO YOU IDIOTS, that is what I railed against... the Monopolies authorized by the crown... STOP using my name in vain. But don't tell the right wing this. It is like foreign and shit.

[HereSince1628]

22. Have you ever felt the Invisble Hand pats you on the back?

Seems like the possible basis of a very heady poem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Yeah of course in a Galt way

:-)

What if funny is that Smith never evah meant it either the way the RIGHT WING think he did.

That's what so damn humorous.

Recently I had a "talk" with a right winger. He was going over how ahem commie we are.

So I told him... I am all for the return of Capitalism.

He looked at me wondering where the hell was I going with that since HE KNOWS I am a damn dirty well you know pinko commie.

So I took out my electronic copy of Adam Smith and read the proper sections.

He went like that could not be and shit... so I suggested we walk into the bookstore, and he can find them sections himself. We did... there most be a big conspiracy and shit to change the words of Adam Smith.

Yep, dumber than rocks and all that. No, sadly I am NOT kidding.

[HereSince1628]

26. Sounds like a strong friendship

I don't think I'd ever get the wangers I know to step into a bookshop.

That person might be salvagable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Nope he is not

he usually buys a copy of An Ryand's works once a year and re reads them until they fall to pieces.

[Leopolds Ghost]

31. What the hell does HCR have to do with Capitalism or Socialism? It is Mercantilism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Well since it is not classic capitalism, or socialism or for that matter

mercantilism...

But that is ok.

[anigbrowl]

37. Say what now?

HCR = mercantilism? Please explain your reasoning here - as mercantilism generally refers to trade policy. I'm guessing you're looking at it in the context of it being an effective subsidy for privately owned insurance companies, but subsidies aren't necessary the same thing as mercantilism.

[louis-t]

2. Or a "Christian" government?

[JDPriestly]

3. It's in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


14. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html

[Xipe Totec]

4. But the 5th also establishes the state's power to sieze property without consent

Just compensation is required, but not consent.

So, technically, socialism is also in the constitution.

[MajorChode]

7. The 5th amendment is irrelevant here

The clause in the 5th amendment speaks to property. Share of the insurance market is not property.

There have been lawsuits on all sorts of crazy grounds against Social Security, Medicare, and income taxes. Those that made it to the USSC all failed.

[Xipe Totec]

16. Who said anything about a share of the insurance market?

That's a red herring.

The OP question was "Is capitalism as our economic structure any place in the constitution?"

To which the respondent offered the 5th amendment as a possibility.

Eminent domain is relevant to this point.

[MajorChode]

23. That would be even more irrelevant

Eminent domain has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism as I have never seen any means of production taken using the 5th amendment as justification, nor do I think the 5th amendment allows for it as it only deals with property.

[anigbrowl]

29. Er yes, but that is not the same as the abolition of private property

(which is the basic principle of socialism as an economic system). The enumeration of individuals' rights, including property rights, necessarily assumes a natural right to own property in the first place.

[JDPriestly]

32. The Fifth Amendment establishes that the government must recognize

a private interest in property when it exists but also provides that the government can take property provided that it justly compensates for the property.

In England, I believe, the King's government was of course sovereign -- (think about the meaning of the word sovereign). Ours is also a sovereign government which we intend to be of the people, by the people, for the people. The government is sovereign, but we are the government. When we require any one of us to give property to the government, we pay just compensation.

If people are talking about the Wellpoint Bill, it provides that people who obtain health care insurance may receive tax relief. It requires the purchase of private insurance but only in the sense that the government requires the purchase of a house with a mortgage in order to get a tax deduction for interest.

[ashling]

14. Neither of those amendments garauntees property

they garauntee due process of law ....

citing Wikipedia can get you in trouble

[anigbrowl]

28. Poster is citing the constitution itself...

which happens to be also cited and discussed in further detail on wikipedia.

[ashling]

33. The Post specifially reffered to two amendment to the Const.

My remark about Wikipedia was just my professorial coment about relying/citing that as a source.

[anigbrowl]

36. I'm not sure you're in a good position to comment

'My remark about Wikipedia was just my professorial coment about relying/citing that as a source.'

OK, but I might say the same about your unsupported claims that the 5th amendment doesn't guarantee property...the mere fact of specifying that due process applies to claims arising out of private property is an a priori acknowledgment that a right to private property exists. In other words, you could not constitutionally abolish private property by act of Congress.

[ashling]

40. I never said that private property does not exist

All I said was that the amendments mentioned guarantee due process of law. The government can claim the right of eminent domain in many cases as long as they have given the due process of law.

Private property is a qualified right. In fact, it could be said that there is no ownership of property. There are only rights in that property. The right of easement, the right to encumber, the right to adversely possess, the right to convey (not a complete list by any means.

If an individual possesses all rights, we sa they possess in fee simple.

However, superior to any of these rights is the right of government to tax. Property and other taxes can encumber the property. Chief Justice Marshall (John) said that the power to tax is the power to destroy (McCullough v. Maryland). Along with the power of eminent domain, that is some pretty awesome power to destroy private property .... except for one thing. That one thing is guaranteed by the amendments cited: the due process of law.

I refer basically to real property, laws relating to personal property may vary.

[anigbrowl]

41. OK, but just compensation does imply an exchange

That is, while you have no fundamental right to any particular piece of property, you are entitled to the value of same if the government takes possession of it to build a freeway or something. So while property is fungible, it seems to me that the right of private ownership is constitutionally guaranteed, just not the peculiar form of that ownership. As the question was asked in the context of economics (does the constitution specify capitalism or not) and the right to private ownership of property (in general) is a basic prerequisite of capitalism, I'm inclined to say that yes, the constitution does support capitalism.

If a law were passed that attempted to abolish private property in pursuit of pure socialism, how would one go about rendering just compensation? Money is, after all, a form of private property. I don't feel that private property necessarily means real property, ie land. It could be a famous painting, a bag of diamonds, a unique invention whose workings had been kept secret rather than patented, and so forth.

I'm not disputing the right to levy taxes at all - I don't think that's incompatible with capitalism as an economic system.

[ashling]

44. I see your point

First of all, let me explain my point of view viz a viz rea; property. I spent too many years in the title insurance industry surrounded by ultra conservative goombahs who thought that God decreed that private property was sacred.

Let's look at this on a different scale ... closer up as it were. I don't think that the constitution neccessarily prevents the govt. from nationalizing a corporation or industry if it was necessary for national security, or other function which is either enumerated or necessary and proper for one of the enumerated purposes. This, of course would be a hot political question and that would be a whole different ball of would.

Eminent domain is not limited to real property. However, Due Process and Compensation are required.

I

[Toucano]

48. Actually only due process is required.

Compensation may be required, depending on the circumstances.

For example, we don't compensate a drug dealer when his property is seized for violation of drug laws. He gets due process in a court of law, but no compensation.

[anigbrowl]

51. We're talking about a different clause

specifically the last one 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' This is separate from criminal matters, which are dealt with in the previous clause.

[ashling]

I see your point

First of all, let me explain my point of view viz a viz rea; property. I spent too many years in the title insurance industry surrounded by ultra conservative goombahs who thought that God decreed that private property was sacred.

Let's look at this on a different scale ... closer up as it were. I don't think that the constitution neccessarily prevents the govt. from nationalizing a corporation or industry if it was necessary for national security, or other function which is either enumerated or necessary and proper for one of the enumerated purposes. This, of course would be a hot political question and that would be a whole different ball of would.

Eminent domain is not limited to real property. However, Due Process and Compensation are required.

I

[Toucano]

47. An "exchange" can exist outside of capitalism.

I think your logic is faulty perhaps because you are thinking in absolutes (that don't actually exist - ie "pure socialism")

You are saying basically, "Capitalism requires private property. The Constitution conveys a right to an exchange or compensation for private property. Therefore, the Constitution supports capitalism."

In truth, the constitution describes circumstances whereby the state may regulate private property for public use - through compensation. Regulating property for public use is not "taking" property, and is closely in line with socialist theory.

Furthermore, the "due process" required to separate an individual from his private property can be widely interpreted, such as, "Congress passed a law. Your fat Wall Street bonus will be collected to build a school. You had your due process, now hand it over!"

Or "Congress passed a law. You've been tried and found guilty of possessing 200 pot plants in your house. Your house is now federal property. Due process has been realized."

Smells more like socialism than capitalism to me.

[anigbrowl]

52. You have no idea what you are talking about

And I strongly suspect that you only partially remember the text of the 5th amendment. It doesn't wallow in vague generalities about 'regulating property for public use' but explicitly prohibits taking it to that end without payment. Here it is again, for reference:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

You seem to favor a peculiarly obnoxious approach to governance elevating authority over principle. Regrettably, this approach ends up being horribly repressive in most cases, notwithstanding the abundance of good intentions. Socialism is a flawed economic system to start with, but your particular take on it is a total crock.

[Toucano]

54. I describe what I see.

You contort logic until you see what you want.

[anigbrowl]

55. Then I can only suggest having your vision checked

When you say that the 5th amendment talks about regulating rather than taking property for public use, but the actual text speaks of property being taken, I go with the text.

[Toucano]

58. Taking property for public use is regulating it.

The King held dominion over all property, rivaled only by the church (perhaps).

If the King kicked you off your farm because he wanted to build a summer home, he did. It was no longer yours (it probably belonged to nobleman and you were just a tenant anyway, but the effect on you is the same). You could not farm it, and you got no benefit from it being his summer home.

IN A DEMOCRACY, if the representative government needs your farm - to which you have a title (remind you of the nobleman?) - to build a highway, a canal, or a school it will be compensated. But who owns the highway, canal, or school?

YOU DO! You are the government in a democracy. Can you still farm that land? No, because it has been appropriated for another USE. It is being regulated! But you will be compensated AND you will benefit from it's re-appropriation.

The fact that compensation is provided has no exclusivity to capitalist theory, and that my friend, is the crux of your constitutional "proof" that the United States is bound by the Constitution to struggle under the tyrannical thumb of the capitalists.

It is hogwash! "Exchanges", as you put it, very much exist in other economic systems besides capitalism, as does private property.

[kestrel91316]

5. Same place it says JEEBUS RULES!!11!!!1 DUmmie!

[Kalun D]

6. Force

Forcing people to purchase a product from a private for profit corporation is certainly not in the constitution.

In this case CORRUPT private for profit corporations.

[virgogal]

8. Good point.

[0rganism]

13. except there is no force

incentive? yes. Force? no.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Takes me to ORIGINAL intent and an act of congres

signed by oh the First President...

Oh never mind... why bother with that.

By the way, if you don't want to... you can like skip it and all that.

[Fumesucker]

9. That would be the Zeroth Amendment..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroth

[safeinOhio]

10. Mandate as a tax

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[safeinOhio]

11. impost

impost 1 |ˈimˌpōst|
noun
a tax or similar compulsory payment.

all sounds very constitutional to me, but I'm not a Constitutional Law Professor.

[protocol rv]

12. Health Reform isn't more socialist than Medicare, is it?

I don't understand the logic. You Americans have health care for old people, called Medicare. They also get medicines. You also have free health care for the very poor who don't have jobs, and this is the very best care.

Yet you don't have it for younger people if they are workers and not completely bankrupt. From a practical stand point, it makes more sense to have this government health care for children and young workers, and let the older people die. And it doesn't make sense to have the government pay for the very best care for paupers. After all, they are not working.

Or you could try something more logical, have minimum health care provided by the government for everybody? You have public education and public road building, public transport and public water works. You even have subsidies for the corn ethanol industry, which is one of the craziest things I ever heard. And you surely spend a lot invading other nations. So why not reduce what you spend invading Iraq and making subsidized ethanl and use it to pay for better health care?

I just don't see why you argue so much about a simple thing like this.

[Fumesucker]

18. There are those of us here on DU who see this as an essentially corporatist bill

To some of us this bill is a move in exactly the wrong direction, towards further empowering insurance corporations over which we have almost no real control at all. Those of us who feel this way think that we are more likely to be able to control a strictly or mostly government insurance program.

And then of course there are those who see it exactly the opposite, as a taking over of a large portion of the business of our nation by the government. These people are often motivated by the great amount of propaganda disseminated by the corporate media.

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. Lack of civics education causes lots of DUers to believe mandatory private health care is

A) Capitalist

or

B) Social Welfare, like Medicare.

More proof of what PT Barnum said about how you can sell anything to the American public,

especially once you've convinced liberals to give up their liberalism in place of a shallow cultural conservatism known as "progressivism".

how many uninsured people on DU are happy about being forced to purchase private health insurance?

[Greyhound]

43. The "health care for the very poor" is not only not "the very best care", it is terrible,

another in the ever-growing line of national shames.

We, as in the citizens of the U.S., aren't arguing at all, we've elected two Congresses and a President in order to address this problem. Unfortunately, we cannot compete with billions in corporate bribery, so our voices are completely ignored. Look at the zillions of polls conducted during the interminable primary season and after the most recent election, overwhelming support for a single-payer type of solution. What's the very first thing they did after the election? "Took it off the table", so we are only allowed to "debate" a selection of terrible ideas all of which give more power to the corporations.

It is simple, but the owners of the table get to decide what is on it to discuss.

[Tejas]

17. Doesn't promote Fascism either,

but still plenty of folks trying to push it, ie: gun control comes to mind.

[Roland99]

21. This Dentist knows. He's even "fixing" schoolbooks in Texas to tell us so.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/they-want-to-make-it-look-like-we-are-dumb-morons/article1514049/

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anigbrowl]

38. I see the poster above has been tombstoned already :-)

[SDuderstadt]

49. Who was it?

[anigbrowl]

53. I forget...some nitwit claiming the USA went commie back in the 1970s or something

[treestar]

39. It is presumed; since the Founders never even thought of such

a thing - in their day one scratched a living from the land and the land was there, and in America, relatively open - even if you account for Native Americans not liking it, there was room for everyone at the time.

It just never occurred to them.

[Toucano]

50. Sorry. That's super naive and patently false.

They rebelled against a King and parliament who they felt were taking their property unfairly. It was something they called "taxation without representation" (truth being that parliament represented all British subjects - as British colonies, they were represented indirectly).

The founders were very keenly aware of economic issues, many being wealthy plantation owners who were not bound to "scratch out a living" from the land, but rather owned other people who did the scratching for them. The rest were merchants buying and selling, importing and exporting - for profit.

Read Adams, Madison or Jefferson. They knew what the game was all about.

What is far more reasonable to presume is that the majority of early colonial Americans were very much more interdependent on one another than we conscious of being today. The colonies were based on charters granted to the wealthy by the crown and they were expected to make a profit. From Jamestown on, communities (especially in the northern colonies) depended on the work and skills of all of their members to "scratch out a living".

Franklin, for one, clearly saw this when he started the world's first Fire Department in Philadelphia. Every life had risk and the burden of that risk was easier to bear if it was shared by all.

That's not an America the 21st century capitalist teabaggers are talking about at all. But then again, they're products of government run failed educational initiatives. :)

[Ozymanithrax]

42. The founders were used to British Imperial Mercantilism.

The U.S. economy after the founding of the nation also followed Mercantilism. The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, is the founding document of free market capitalism, and grew to dominate the American Economy in the 1800's.

Capitalism today is not really Adam Smith's free market capitalism but Consumerism.

[Kalun D]

45. Other Terms

how about corporatism?

or predatory capitalism?

or virtual monopoly?

or corporate fascism?

[Ozymanithrax]

46. The first and last term are synonyms.

Corporatism is Italian Fascism. A monopoly violates the basic tenant of free market capitalism. Adam Smith believed that the roll of governments was to monitor business so they did not try to come to agreements that limited competition. All capitalism is, to some extent, predatory. But in that it does limit competition, it ceases to be the classic free market capitalism of Adam Smith.

Consumerism, which is actually what we use here in America, creates a system to redistribute wealth from the poor and middle class to the owner/investor. This is done be creating products, most of which we don't need, building the myth of the wealthy (if you drink the same beer or drive the same care that the wealthy have you are wealthy), and easy credit. Easy Credit multiplies cash flow, and keeps capital moving up to the top. Our entire media system is created to sell products. Not just advertisements, but product placement makes every show you see on TV one long advertisement. Most shows also show the myth of the affluent. The wealthy are smart, intelligent, and good looking. The poor are stupid. Even the middle class folk live lifestyles that are almost impossible to imagine.

Just one example. The CSI shows are people by supposedly middle class individuals. The dress and live lives that few middle class folk can even dream of.

We are consumers, and consumerism is designed to remove money from our hands and make it flow up to the wealthy.

[blindpig]

56. You have just described Capitalism

with some of the peculiarities of the immediate present, which can and will change according to where the most profit is to be found.

Why jerk around with alternative terms?

[Ozymanithrax]

57. No, I described Consumerism...

It is easy to confuse it with Free Market Capitalism, because everybody says we are a capitalist system. But we are nothing like the ideas espoused by old Adam Smith.

[blindpig]

59. Do you know 'the ideas espoused by Adam Smith?

Old Karl Marx did and he predicted what we are seeing now based upon the work of Smith and Richardo.