James Madison, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin all supported and stated that agrarian republics experienced more freedom, liberty, and overall autonomy. Alexander Hamilton was in favor of a manufacturing society, and the industrialization of certain industries in order to advance the nation.
A society with a mix of these founding principles is the solve for American Democracy. Homesteading will solve the housing and food crisis. The production of US made products on a local scale will help to achieve the ultimate goal of good government which is the prosperity of itâs people.
The American Dream is equal Opportunity. Ensuring that products and necessities are available to US citizens at fair prices is one of the primary goals of goverment.
My question to the Forum:
Is there a way to limit the horizontal and vertical expansion of business within our country without violating the rights of our citizens, and retaining our values?
Horizontal Expansion, could be described as single line of products/services that expands overtly in availability, and limits the opportunity of new and budding business. (as in, chain restaurants, chain retail, food packaging/production companies, etc.)
Vertical Expansion, could be described as a multitude of products/services that expands overtly in availability, and limits the opportunity of new and budding business. (as in, mass product shipping companies, chain super stores, chain convenience stores, etc.)
Businesses like Caseyâs, Walmart, 7-Eleven, Target suck up profit and business availability in our local communities. You want to start a pizza place? Oh wait, Pizza Hut and Caseyâs can outcompete you without even competing with each other. You want to start a boutique? Oh-Walmart, Target, and Amazon can outcompete you. Business opportunity is dead with extreme multi-national vertical and horizantal business models.
Silly, irrelevant question. Our democracy, the American Democracy, is a constitutional democratic republic. Or at least is supposed to be.
Yet through lobbied legislation, unapportioned representatives and taxes-the US has been transformed into an Aristocratic-Plutocracy that perpetuates Neo-Imperialism, securing assets through military intervention under the guise of National/Global security; while retaining said assets through economic imperialism and currency weaponization.
Iâll finish by saying: I donât understand your question.
Iâm so thankful you asked! The following two vids explain the issue of democracy vs. Constitutional Republic much better than I can.
But to paraphrase: A democracy is about majority rule,despite individual rights.
Whereas a Constitutional Republic protects and defends Individual Rights and Freedoms.
So when We hear modern-day politicians say something like, "that is a âthreat to our democracy,â they are NOT talking about you nor I, a.k.a. We the People, and our individual, God-given Rightsâno sirâthey are talking about their majority rule to ignore and trample our inalienable, individual rights and freedoms. Do you see?
We are a representative-democracy locally, and organized as a constitutional republic federally. The United States has always been considered a political experiment.
These videos highlight the pure founding principles of either ideology. But the second video hits the point youâre trying to make a bit better (I think).
Yet still, I disagree. Ayn Rand gives great examples of either ideology in itâs pure form, but ignore certain qaulities of the US government.
Our nation could be refered to as a democratic-republic because the majority vote, which is cast by the larger majorty (the population), elects an (used to be, hasnt been since 1929) apportioned representative to adhere to portion of the populations opinions and beliefs, while also adhereing to our established Constitution.
Now hereâs where I can agree. Our nation, through thr unapportionment of Taxes and Representatives, has subverted the ultimate security of our Constitution by Majority Vote. Our checks and balances have failed to uphold the Constitution, via the apportionment of representatives and taxes, aka the destruction of our republic and the manufacture of an unchecked majority, run by political affiliates rather than people.
So in conclusion, I believe we used to function as a constitutional republic with democratic principles, and now a majority oligarchy (the specific groups being political parties rather than the people).
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Local or State âdemocracyâ does NOT supercede it. However a group of corrupt men passed the unlawful Act of 1871, which formed a âseparateâ form of government for Washington, DC. That was where the TREASON of the modern day Corporation-based âgovernmentâ began, although there were previous actions that also subverted the original Constitution.
I didnât say that democracy supercedes the Constitution. I stated that our Judicial Branch failed to uphold the Constitutionâs requirement that representatives be apportioned per thirty-thousand. Dismantling true representation for majority democracy by political party rather than populations.
Iâm agreeing with you. My only differing opinion is that pre the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, Congress did function under representative democratic principles. Representatives casting majority votes that were supposed to adhere to the Constitution.
Due to political organization, and affiliation, our checks and balences failed to uphold certain values of our republic.
I agree that there is a problem with giant, multinational corporations. What do you propose? I have always been a proponent of the local movement. Support local business, local farmers, local banks,etc. But we keep falling further behind that value.
What might be a greater and more long-lasting solution?
This question is the very reason I posted this under Meetings instead of as a policy proposal.
I donât have a direct answer for that. Nor do I think there is a very clear one. Above, I state the following:
Horizontal Expansion, could be described as single line of products/services that expands overtly in availability, and limits the opportunity of new and budding business. (as in, chain restaurants, chain retail, food packaging/production companies, etc.)
Vertical Expansion, could be described as a multitude of products/services that expands overtly in availability, and limits the opportunity of new and budding business. (as in, mass product shipping companies, chain super stores, chain convenience stores, etc.)
Businesses like Caseyâs, Walmart, 7-Eleven, Target suck up profit and business availability in our local communities. You want to start a pizza place? Oh wait, Pizza Hut and Caseyâs can outcompete you without even competing with each other. You want to start a boutique? Oh-Walmart, Target, and Amazon can outcompete you. Business opportunity is dead with extreme multi-national vertical and horizantal business models.
My first thought is legislation limiting the horizontal and vertical expansion of such business within the US. But, there are some major issues with this; having to do with equal opportunity to the market, and federal involvement in local business. How would we create legislation that protects the Peopleâs liberties and opportunities from conglomerate entities?
Here are some issues I see with the entire concept.
Direct limitations of business within the US could be perceived as overinvolvement in local business, and the lives of citizens.
Granting the government the ability to break up business based on vague definition of âexpansionâ could create a snowball effect in terms of government abuse of power.
Capping the growth of a business limits the opportunity for People to succeed; achieve the American Dream (which I personally view as equal opportunity.)
There needs to be such a solution that creates-donât quote me on this-a new tax bracket (or some type of financial dissuasion) for multi-regional and multi-national businesses to expand. Much like how tariffs would work for protecting fair prices for imports to the US market.
Foreign power raises prices â US establishes tariff to dissuade the US market from Foreign products/encourage US production of said products â US market uses US-made-products or Foreign power makes fair trade deal.
Businesses that want to expand interregionally or internationally need a reason not to expand. If you were Walmart, why wouldnât you outcompete/replace every single grocery store in the US? There needs to be financial incentive to not expand within the US. This could even be done at the State level, but occasionally a couple businesses make up the entire revenue of a Stateâs income.
OR
If a business model like McDonaldâs is wanting to expand internationally, maybe local ownership of the individualized locations could become official. No one would want the government to bust up their business just cause; require businesses to expand and sell their assets.
Itâs a whole new business model. I start a pizza place, work on expanding locations â Create âsunset clause franchiseeâ locations (as a business expands, their separate locations only function as a subsidiary for the amount of time it would take them to become independently run, funded, and paid for.)
Rather than me expanding exponentially, owning everything in a game of monopoly; the expansion of my business would yield new industry growth, healthy competitiveness, new opportunities for upcoming business owners, and protect the personal growth of my own income (through renovation of new locations/selling off established locations) without overexpansion.
Walmart should stay in Rogers, AR; McDonaldâs should stay in San Bernardino, CA. Not every town in the US. Your super store should be a locally owned one, your burger place should be a locally owned one.
There are a LOT of specifics to get into when it comes to other types of business like banks and hospitals. Thus the reason this is a discussion instead of a policy proposal.
