, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is a real, written debate between me and a Communist. I know the guy personally, I’ve known him since he was a baby. It’s also a bloody debate: the Communist gets murdered in here.

I will go under the name Blackstone, the Liberal I’ll be debating will be named Pedro el Communist (he’s literally a self-described Communist, I’m not making this up. I’m a Classical Liberal by the way, not a Conservative or Liberal, a Classical Liberal.


Blackstone: People say that we shouldn’t allow rich people to donate too much money to political campaigns because it’s undemocratic: the rich are the minority. But if that’s the case, then why do we have a Senate? The Senate was designed (like the House of Lords) to very much favor the rich. The rich have rights to their property too. Property is called property because it’s yours, so why does the government, as well as those who don’t produce very much, often think it’s theirs? Isn’t forcefully taking something isn’t yours called theft?

Pedro el Communist: But, isn’t it also unfair how people who have a lot of money (big corporations to name) can donate so much money and can lobby Congress to persuade its members to do their bidding instead of the people they represent?

Blackstone: Yes, it is unfair how corporate bodies get special privileges. It’s called socialism by the way: the public ownership or control of capital. But it’s necessary to first draw a few distinctions to really make sense of American corporatism. A corporation is a collection of individuals, the complexities between laws for individuals and corporations often obscures this topic because the two are more connected then you might think. It’s also necessary to point out that nearly all the rules favoring the rich come not from the Congress, but from Federal Departments like the SEC, Federal Reserve, EPA, FCC, and the USDA; all of which have no authority of any kind to do these things, they’re not even elected.

But the most important thing to note perhaps, is the difference between the Congress and the Senate. Having read some of the recent laws coming out of Washington, I can tell you that the vast majority of big business policies come from the Senate, not the House. And that’s important, because while the House members are chosen by the people (as a practical practice), the Senate represents the states; allow me to state the obvious that the Federal government is a federal government, not a national one. Now since it’s a constitutionally limited confederation, the whole practice of interfering with business at this level is what’s unfair. If you wish to state that republican government is supposed to represent the people and not big business, then I should direct you to the various writings of Madison on faction. The Federal government is a special case of government, because it does not represent the people at all, it represents the states: these united states: this springs from both form and power. It also springs from both form and power that the Federal government has no authority to interfere with business. If you doubt me, I’m willing to explain the constitutional law behind this.

Being a Communist, you’ll probably object that I get all my knowledge about the Constitution from FOX News, or from Glenn Beck. But this is not the case at all, I don’t even get my knowledge from Oliver DeMille or Thomas Woods, I get it straight from the source: the original documents and records written by the founders, many of which are extremely obscure, yet are authoritative. I’ve studied thousands of pages of them. The same kind of thing goes for my knowledge of U.S. regulations; I go straight to the laws themselves. For example, during the whole SOPA/PIPA thing, I went and directly read the bill, instead of getting a pundits opinion. Anyway, I think I overkilled this topic so far, so I’ll rest my case.