Thanks for asking, I appreciate your interest.

Take a look at this;

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am11.html

You can read from the Preamble through the first 10 amendments in 10-15 minutes. Every thing else has been added since it’s adoption. I think the Preamble is inspired prose, while the Bil of Rights (first 10 amendments) is the foundation of our nation.

Do you have a link to an easy-to-read version of the US constitution or a summary of the material?

I’d like to read it, but I’m not sure I want to read a long detailed document word for word.

Eric

I unreasonable assume too parochial a view of the internet and the fact that a blog can be written in all areas of the earth. I just take the US onstitution for granted, not allowing for the fact that the vast majority of the earth’s population couldn’t care less.
On second thought, that sentiment applies to a growing number of our politicians as well. Too bad.

An interesting discussion.

Eric, I think I chose the wrong word when I said “maintains” large discrepancies in wealth. “Maintains” is too active. I think what I meant is “supports.” I don’t think anybody is actively promoting disparities of wealth as an end goal. I do, however, believe that disparities of wealth are a natural result in a market economy. If you support market economics, you support disparities of wealth.

ClydeB. I also haven’t read the US constitution. My instinct is that it is a mistake to try to move back to a simpler system that worked in the past. I’ll have to read and think more about it, though.

My comments were intended to be a logical or philosophical approach, not an actual system of controls.

I’m from Canada, so I don’t know all the ins and outs of the American constitution. My understanding is that it follows my first approach – it assumes individual freedom then specifies the role of government and specific restrictions on freedom. Is that correct?

My thought was not whether you end up with a lot of controls or a lot of freedoms, but from which perspective you start from. You could still start out from a position of full freedom, but then specify a long list of controls that means you don’t have much freedom left.

A small-scale example can be summed up by a colleague of mine who categorizes countries around the world as being either “U-turn” countries or “no U-turn” countries. In some countries, you’re allowed to make a U-turn when driving anywhere you want, unless there is a sign specifically saying you can’t. In others, you are not allowed to make a U-turn anywhere unless there is a sign specifically saying you can.

The connection I’m trying to make regarding wages is to think about whether there is a default position that government should automatically keep wages fair or equal, or if there should only be a specific measure taken if for some reason people/society/government feels that salaries are out of line.

Eric

It is highly unlikely that your assumption could ever prove to be true, as in your example of total government to start and justify maintaining control. The problem is that those who have control only give it up when it is wrested from their cold dead hands, no matter how well justified.

Historically, civilizations have evolved with adding control after control after control, justified or not.

Bottom line is that neither approach has a track record of being fair, just or especially effective.

Our Constitution is the best example of minimum control on indivduals with maximum control on authority, as I’ve seen.

I only wish it were still being followed.

This discussion makes me think about the larger role of government. I think there are two reasonable perspectives to take when thinking of government – you could start off with no government and no controls and then justify why we need the government to intervene; or you could start off with the government controlling everything and justify the things you choose NOT to control. You might end up in the same place, but I think the side you come from informs your perspective on things.

A sentence near the end of your post reads: “… an economic system that maintains large discrepancies in wealth …”. When you say “that maintains”, are you implying that the economic system and/or government should necessarily have a position or policy on discrepancies in wealth? I would think that discrepancies would be an outcome. If they aren’t desirable, we could come up with policies to adjust them, but we don’t necessarily have to have a policy on the front end.

Another way of looking at it might be: We currently have a progressive income tax system that, I think, goes a long way to re-distribute wealth. Taxing the wealthy more essentially takes money from them to give to the poor (or provide services to the poor). Do you view this as ‘taking’ money from the rich, or is the system simply preventing them from receiving too much? It’s a subtle change in perspective.

I apologise – long post without a clear point. Oh well. I’ll work harder next time. Back to work.

Eric