[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you'd have to look at historical situations and not just one measurement. Today, I see the numbers showing dramatic wealth growth in the past three decades among only the top 4% and ask why and what's the impact?

What does this have to do with "the continued consolidation of wealth drives more consolidation of power"? What is the impact? Is there more "power" after a certain amount of wealth is achieved? Does limitless wealth achieve limitless power? Are the super wealthy responsible for the National debt and budget deficits? Are they bribing "officials" to go into debt? Don't super wealthy people and politicians get convicted and jailed on such counts of collusion? And how has the Federal Government's unconstitutional grab of power stopped this? Hasn't this dramatic wealth growth occurred during the Federal Government expansion?

I'm sure a lot of bad decisions are made with plenty of virtue. Is a Republican representative from Ohio who advocates spending for jet engines the military says they don't need lacking virtue? Perhaps they're just trying to create jobs for their constituents.

Yes, a lot of "bad decisions" were made because Congressmen and Presidents and Supreme Court Justices thought they were acting "responsibly." Or because they were looking out for the interests of their constituents. Yet, rather than being restricted by Constitutional limits, you prefer that the Congress and the Executive are allowed to do whatever they deem "responsible." If they act Constitutionally, they are limited in power to act and, for the most part, the electorate has the power to remove them. When the Central Government assumes powers Constitutionally delegated to the States and the People, it is not possible for States in the minority to avoid the illegal imposition cast on them by Representatives of States with the majority of electoral votes. Often the majority of States are ruled by a minority against rights granted to them by the Constitution. Even more egregious is the unconstitutional creation of regulatory agencies that have plenary power to create de facto legislation against which none of the people have the power to reject. All in the name of acting "responsibly."

While I'd agree that breaking up influence among the states has merit, I'd also think the influence of large multi-national corporations -- who's revenues exceed many state governments -- could potentially be worse at the state level.

Again, the equation of money and power. Actually, it is the States that are granted police power by the Constitution. That power and the power granted to individuals by the Constitution can combine to allow such corporations to operate beneficially to the State--far more so than the Federal Government dictating where and how they can operate.

...or observation. Many regulations are a response to abuses of the public trust.

Again, the States are closer to the public trust in their communities than the Federal Government. The powers reserved to the States by the Constitution better serve them in responding to their public trust than the Federal Government dictating to their local publlic from afar and with differing agendas and interests.

And why I usually advocate a balanced approach.

How does a nebulous, non-existing balanced approach make it harder for lobbyists to approach the Central government than it would be for them to approach all the individual States and their communities? It seems that it would be easier to bribe or influence a few than many.

My assertion is that an overly aggressive move to limit the Federal government (ideologically) given how our current Government operates will serve to further concentrate power and wealth resulting in less power for the people.

Again you refer to Constitutional governance as "ideological." You'll have to explain that concept. The unconstitutional way our current Government operates does serve to further concentrate power and wealth. Such power and wealth concentration furthering has occurred during expanded Federal power. And the concept that greater government power results in greater power for the people also needs to be explained.

Certainly?

Yes.

I'd argue it's the "action of reaching" that actually creates the real wealth. Recently India and China are perfect examples, although in both instances their governments provide heavy subsidies. The US certainly has had this spirit...

Yes, but most are not capable of or not interested in reaching for real wealth. Those that are create the wealth that others tap into. Come on Spence, India and China! We were blessed with a tradition of English law and a culture that fostered business. But we also were born as a country into individual freedom and responsibility and a culture of business and free enterprise. And we rejected Britain's protection and defunct government subsidized colonial companies. India and China have much culturally and pollitically to overcome in order for their people to produce individual wealth. And China is funding its economic growth on its hugely imbalanced trade with us and by inviting corporations to set up shop there under its conditions including a majority of Chinese managers to run the operations and the transfer of technology to those managers. If China grants the individual freedoms we originally had to its citizens, it might economically swamp us, especially if we continue to overregulate and control our population.

Most of the Federal spending towards education goes to the underprivileged...precisely because the states weren't taking care of their own poor...if we could have only let them fail we'd probably all be a lot better of

Any change in attitude toward "their own poor" has mostly occurred as a result in overall societal change. Progress does occur. Federal politicians aren't more humane that State pols. The Feds did come from the States. See Scott's comment below for how better off Fed spending has made the poor.

You really don't know that...what I do know is that the choices that have been made have worked out pretty well overall considering all the issues we do currently face.

I know it as well as you don't. Besides, being the strongest nation in the world is not the point of Constitutional Governance. At the time of the Revolution, Britain was the strongest nation in the world. We preferred our freedom and our Constitution to Britain's strength.

Perhaps conservatism needs to be updated? I'd call it neo-conservatism but that name is taken.

-spence

Labels can be pointless. Your "so much of how we live today the general public has accepted as the norm. Has this not become part of the fabric of mundane knowledge that conservatism is woven from" is mysterious if not pointless. Is neo-conservatism that mundane fabric? Didn't you say in another thread that conservatism meant to conserve? How does accepting a current norm become conserving? Don't norms change? I would think that a conservative, one who conserves, would conserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and its form of government.