Kristina, the answers to your above questions are mainly covered in the next article, Part Two of the series. Please scroll up to end of Part One and click on the link that says “Part 2″ in the first line of the final paragraph.

Oh, in answer to the final part of your second question above, “where does {a free market} exist?”… actually, as explained in the second paragraph of the above article (Part One) there has never been a totally free market (again, “totally free” meaning that there is a “Rule of Law” in which government’s legitimate functions include protection against force and fraud) and then I explain in the fourth paragarph that “to the degree” there is one, a country and its citizens prosper and “to the degree” there is not one, the opposite occurs.

Thank you,

Bob

What is your definition of Socialism, and who, right now in this country, is on the receiving end?

What is your definition of a Free Market, and where does one exist?

I’m sorry you feel beseiged. Absolutely no offense is meant and I hope you don’t take it that way. I appreciate all the work you’ve put into our exchange of ideas.

You wrote: “I’ll address your last point first: I’m not giving politicians the right to regulate, they are given it by the very Constitution you’re referencing in Article One.”

Bob responds: Please pardon the semantics for a moment; I realize this will be annoying to some. But, government actually as no “rights” – only “powers” (and strictly enumerated ones at that – which are, not given, but only granted (See Article 1 – Section 1).) Theoretically, we the people can take back any of those enumerted powers at our discretion but, of course, that is hardly realistic at this point.

Anyway, regarding the powers to regulate. In Article 1 – Section 8 – Clause 3, it indeed does grant congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, between the states and the Native American tribes. However, two very important points. This regulation must be in accordance with the rest of the Constituation and Bill of Rights. They cannot just make up rules and regulations at their whim just for the sake of regulatiing (or providing special favors to those who contribute to their campaigns). But, also important is the word, “Regulate” which meant, “to keep regular” or “keep it happening.” This because some of “the several states’” governments were making restrictive, protectionist laws. So, actually, to regulate was just the opposite of tying it up with red tape. Again, my question might be, “knowing that red tape is so hurtful to the general welfrare of business and individuals both” why would you be arguing for all but the most limited regulation.

With that said, again, there certainly does need to be a limited amount from time to time. Though, most of that will be covered within the “Force and Fraud” aspect we’ve discussed previously.

You wrote: We both agree with Michael Cloud. And agree with you about taking away their power to operate by granting special favors and priveleges. I think we probably would agree, in fact, I pointed out most places where we do agree. But…I’m confused as to your actual solution for rendering them powerless to enact Corporatist Laws.

Bob responds: What a great question, Kristina. Yes, the solution is simply (but not easily) that, as citizens, we let our elected officials in Washington, D.C. know that, once they swear to uphold, defend and protect (I hope I put that in the right order) the Constitution of the United States of America, if they fail to do so, even once, by passing Unconstitutional laws, they will be voted out of office in the next electon or perhaps even recalled immediately. If that is the case (and if they actually believe the threat) then never again will there be “pork” and never again will a special favor be given to a corporate special interest.

Now, will we ever accomplish that? Personally, I doubt it. I think we are much too far along the road for that to happen. But we can still – instead of arguing for more laws, rules and regulations (which will always benefit those with political power) – we insist and make happen to the degree it is possible that all Unconstitutional laws be taken off the books and that not one new law (outside the confines of the Constitution) can be enacted without that legislator being voted out in the next election.

Yes, I feel like Don Quixote tilting at rainbows but, what the heck.

Thank you again, my friend. I’ve enjoyed our discussion.

I’ll address your last point first: I’m not giving politicians the right to regulate, they are given it by the very Constitution you’re referencing in Article One. We both agree with Michael Cloud. And agree with you about taking away their power to operate by granting special favors and priveleges. I think we probably would agree, in fact, I pointed out most places where we do agree. But…I’m confused as to your actual solution for rendering them powerless to enact Corporatist Laws.

As to the R-L issue, I specifically mention Horwitz with that and then return to the Capitalist-Socialist issue which is what you address. I think we agree on this, it’s just a matter of semantics.

The slavery semantics are beyond my scope at this moment, although I’ll be up for it after I recover from all of this fantastic mental exercise!

Sorry for the bottom to top referencing, my mental acuity is fading and I don’t have the luxury of being able to conveniently place the points next to yours.:-)