| sc94597 said: 2. This is only true for a subset of the framers. Most of the anti-federalists were anti-slavery and pro-women rights. Of course, it took time for their - at the time - radical ideas to become the consensus, and in my opinion it was the democratic process and the majority which prolonged these misdeeds rather than the codified constitution. The southern population just wanted slavery so much that the precepts of liberty and equality before the law were rationalized as not applying to black persons. 3. I view force as (or the threat therof) damage to one's property, person, or freedoms without the consent of the person whom it affects and with the intention of the aggressor. Not all force is bad. Defensive force is alright. But aggression is bad. One can only achieve total control of a means of production with the use of force (note that the only monopolies in history lasted as long as the government supported them, and once that support ended they reverted back to more competitive markets, a key example is standard oil which held 94% market share because of a patent, and once it lost the patent it went down to 68% within fifteen years. Another example was the U.S. Postal Service between late 19th century until 1970.) Without government there would be far more prevalent instances of diseconomies of scale and that would mean more local competition, and overall fewer global monopolies/oligopolies, increasing total competition, reducing prices, and increasing the quality of goods and employment (easier to negotiate with a local employer than a large employer.) |
Well said, my friend; I think I like you.
