![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
politics things
Nov. 12th, 2011 05:35 pmRobin Hood Tax, USA version
This article repeats the claim that, "In order to be effective, the tax would need to be implemented in most major industrial countries where trading is done," a claim that the UK advocates of the Robin Hood Tax thought it important to contradict. Sometimes you have to do a thing yourself and not worry so much about others.
~*~
http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1223191.html?thread=97369879#t97369879
To me the biggest problem with the argument of strict constructionists who try to define the Constitution as favoring the bigger, broader Republic of the 21st Century is that the Founders were very blatantly normal oligarchs of their day. They no more than anyone in the UK or the Netherlands would have seen rights as applicable to all, and even in Haiti, with the most egalitarian 18th Century revolution that concept never appears. So the claim that some dead slaveowner defined rights in the 18th Century as we do in the 21st Century is blatant nonsense and itself starts verging into religious territory, treating the Founders as creators of Yanquistani Hadith.
In fact, to extend the analogy, the people who slavishly follow the concepts of the 18th Century want the Constitution to be the Quran, with the Federalist Papers the Hadith, and trusting in the Heritage Foundation as the Ulama expounding unto the faithful the words of the Righteous Ones who waged treason and got away with it. However, oddly, the reality that none of these men when in actual governance every followed any of the rules they themselves created in their own lifetime when principle would have required them to is entirely irrelevant.
This article repeats the claim that, "In order to be effective, the tax would need to be implemented in most major industrial countries where trading is done," a claim that the UK advocates of the Robin Hood Tax thought it important to contradict. Sometimes you have to do a thing yourself and not worry so much about others.
~*~
http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1223191.html?thread=97369879#t97369879
To me the biggest problem with the argument of strict constructionists who try to define the Constitution as favoring the bigger, broader Republic of the 21st Century is that the Founders were very blatantly normal oligarchs of their day. They no more than anyone in the UK or the Netherlands would have seen rights as applicable to all, and even in Haiti, with the most egalitarian 18th Century revolution that concept never appears. So the claim that some dead slaveowner defined rights in the 18th Century as we do in the 21st Century is blatant nonsense and itself starts verging into religious territory, treating the Founders as creators of Yanquistani Hadith.
In fact, to extend the analogy, the people who slavishly follow the concepts of the 18th Century want the Constitution to be the Quran, with the Federalist Papers the Hadith, and trusting in the Heritage Foundation as the Ulama expounding unto the faithful the words of the Righteous Ones who waged treason and got away with it. However, oddly, the reality that none of these men when in actual governance every followed any of the rules they themselves created in their own lifetime when principle would have required them to is entirely irrelevant.
