That was a tough read. Very workers of the world unite. If you click on the link to the United Americanism they have an 'emotion chart'.

One thing hit me particularly: 'Instead the modern day laborer has no choice but to interact with the commercial entities available to him in already established societies, if he wants job security, which he has the constitutional right to pursue, a right the constitution is supposed to protect, having the individual right to pursue happiness; the freedom to elevate themselves from worry of economic destitution, of self-determination. But if the commercial entities have colluded to promote predatory business practices--increasing profits at the cost of the rights of the laborer--the modern day laborer has no choice but to be taken advantage of if they want job security. Thus, our individual rights are infringed upon by the CEOs, and no individual or organization has the right to infringe upon another citizen's rights, thus commerce must be regulated." My copy of the Constitution must be defective. Nowhere does it say I have a guaranteed right to job security.

These people are scary.

If Warren were to get the nod to run as a dem in 16, that would be the greatest gift ever given to the right. She's a total crackpot.

It's much more than just a 'creepy proposal' as evidenced from this quote: "made up of Experts--public spirited men of great vision who would sit on governmental commissions and look out for the public good--to ensure fair rates, to eliminate rate discrimination, and to regulate other aspects of unjust business practices."

These people are the most dangerous Socialist/Progressive/Technocrats that have ever existed. The biggest problem is that the majority of Americans will only see the highlights and not understand the details. Who are these 'Experts--public spirited men of great vision', who 'look out for the public good'? Where is the individual citizen and human in this picture? He's the proletariat.

That's 'We the People'.

It is always worth knowing your enemy. Though they almost always use variations on the same theme. As soon as I run into the phrase "the public good", I'm reading only to warn myself.

That was an irrational and scary proposal. Here's what I anonymously posted in reply to 1 comment:

I would add that there is no "right" to employment or job security. As free individuals, we have natural rights to engage in free trade, buying property and businesses, and selling our labor. There is no guarantee of the price we receive, however, since the buyer has the freedom to negotiate or not purchase. One of the big problems (and there are many...) with this author's convoluted logic and misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution is the diagnosis of our main problems being tied to corruption that exists in some big businesses (in one form or another). Big businesses cannot force you to buy their products and services. They cannot throw you in jail or confiscate your property. The biggest source of our country's problems today is due to Big Government, which has a monopoly on power and plenty of ways to immorally use force against individuals and big businesses alike. Many people incorrectly think the government's purpose is to magically create equal outcomes in life. Instead, the government's purpose is to protect our natural individual freedoms, staying out of our bedrooms and free markets, and treating us equally under the law (no picking favorites or robbing Peter to pay Paul in exchange for his vote...). Thus, crony capitalism (which isn't real capitalism) is wrong, as is socialism. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely... A Big Government that is big enough to try to create "equal outcomes" is one that ends as a totalitarian state. We should all avoid this danger by rejecting naïve, idyllic policies like the author's above: progressivism, "equal outcomes", social justice, and all other forms of caffeine-free communism... Let freedom ring...

@rockymountain Yes, and I don't get his "no choice" thing. Do those commercial entities point a gun at him? If not, he has a choice. He could form his own commercial entity, which many people do every day.

Also, he keeps talking about "if they want job security". Job security does not exist. A job is when you do something for money. People will only pay you money as long as the need persists, and everything changes in the universe, so their need will eventually change or go away.

I agree with him about the part that we should interact with each other openly, honestly, and trying to be helpful. Isn't that what commercial entities are all about? That's already happening. People learn how to help someone with their problem and find ways to help more and more people. This is where jobs come from. How can you like jobs but not the commercial entities that make them possible?

My question exactly. I suspect that the author has only read recent "opinions" on the Constitution and has not studied the original document.

I am very confused by the article and the website. Whether we like it or not, hasn't the gov't interpreted the Constitution to mean it can regulate business and provide for the needy? Why do we need another Amendment?

Indeed. And a very misguided view of "rights".