Greg (greg morris on Sun, 11/01/2009 - 9:37am) - I'll try to expand my previous points and address your responses.

Slavery was a part of early American society and economic structure, as inherited from world history, prior to enlightenment. However, it was considered a moral "evil" by a large segment of the colonial population, although this sentiment was definitely skewed to the Northern colonies (and later, states). For reference to the enlightened view of the issue at the time, read Thomas Paine's pamphlet "African Slavery In America" per the following. It is very short, only a few pages.

http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/afri.html

By 1804, all Northern states had passed emancipation proclamations, thus progressing the ideological division between the North and South states. The associated governmental problems (resulting from two blocks of states having very differing views), were "patched" with things like the three-fifths compromise. But I disagree that at that time "they put in provisions for ending slavery". The ethical "sticky-wicket" of slavery (obviously a glaring contradiction to "...all men are created equal") was essentially "kicked down the road", so that the obviously unpleasant consequences of trying to resolve the issue then could be avoided, eventually leading to its resolution only by the Civil War.

They were definitely free-market traders, if not capitalist, and I'll yield to the necessity of quotations. The colonies were rich in agricultural commodities (cotton and tobacco being kings) for which Europe was at their doorstep. Interestingly, due to the wealth of the colonies and freedom from high taxes, the numbers of poor and their condition, were considerably better than those living in the squalid cities, and under the self-serving monarchies and aristocracies, of war-prone Europe. Certainly individual liberties were important to our Founders, and this "implies" economic liberty, but even these, they never intended to EXCLUDE from the rule of law.

Normally, the question of "mo", "am" or "im" moral, is restricted to the judgment of actions performed by sentient, adult human beings; and philosophies, religions, economic systems, can profess (or be judged on) the question. My point was, is that there is no INTENT of morality fairly associated with the practice of capitalism. In socialism and communism (especially communism), yes, they use a moral argument to justify themselves. Please DO NOT accuse of "being" either one. Whether these systems achieve their goal or function successfully in application, is another argument.

I think it a stretch to quickly proceed to the conclusion that capitalism is the only good economic system, BECAUSE it is amoral, and therefore "...favors no one, it recognizes no "special interest."

Let me digress here a bit. In all honesty, I find a tendency of the right-of-center thinkers, to like to define little "boxes" of good and evil. Economic "freedom", liberty, capitalism, free-market economics, conservatives, patriots, our soldiers (and hence our wars), etc., all belong in "good boxes". Communism, socialism, progressives, liberals, "re-distribution of wealth", terrorists, government (of any nature), etc., are put in "evil boxes". And rather than think things through and impartially identify the cause of the problem, and judge possible solutions on their own merits, they insist on assigning every issue to one type box or the other, which essentially closes any further debate.

This is self defeating, in that it ignores the complexity of the "boxes" themselves, and the issues that get tossed into them. And issues which arise requiring address on a governmental level (which our Founders recognized would happen, and so set up the best form of government they could think of, i.e., a representative democracy, to as fairly as possible determine a solution), get stuffed in one box or the other, as the conservative element anally defends the infallible definitions of their "boxes", and like quantum physics, insist that the "issue" can only go in one box or the other! In reality, a reasonable solution will most likely be somewhere on a line between GOOD and EVIL BOXES.

Glenn Beck uses these "little boxes". His story boards with the pictures and the lines connecting them all, the speech clips and quotes taken out of context, the guilt by association; this is pure McCartyism, is totally divisive, and does no service to his listeners, the public at large, or help lead to resolution of the issues.

As to "crony capitalism", please do a WIkapedia on it. It addresses it quite well, and also correlates President Eisenhower's famous speech on his departure from office, regarding what he saw as the greatest threat to our country, i.e., the growth of the "military industrial complex". This was an Allied Commander during WWII, and a REPUBLICAN president, yet I hear NO MENTION of this speech from the Becks, the Limbaughs, or the Right in general. I submit that Eisenhower's fears have come to pass, and that THIS is the fundamental cause of the wind we now reap, and which so angers tea-baggers, and ME!. Yet Eisenhower is ignored by the icons of the right, because what he says brings into question the infallibility of one of their little "good boxes", i.e., capitalism, from one of their own.

Again, capitalism is fine, but it CANNOT be allowed to function laissez-faire. Lifting from Wikapedia and paraphrasing Noam Chomsky. "...the word "crony" is superfluous when describing capitalism. Since businesses make money and money leads to political power, business will inevitably use their power to influence governments. Much of the impetus behind campaign finance reform in the United States and in other countries is an attempt to prevent economic power being used to take political power."

This is the soft under-belly of representative democracy, and EXACTLY what Eisenhower warned about. Laissez-faire capitalism operated openly and shamelessly under the hereditary monarchies and aristocracies of Europe, but had to "sneak in" in America, so, like boiling a frog starting with cold water, the people wouldn't notice, as it was definitely anathema to our founders intent. Then, as Paine pointed out (paraphrasing), we accept things as not being wrong for so long, that we eventually tend to think them right. They then become part of the lexicon of "America" and defended by those most damaged by it, without question, because capitalism is in a "good box'!

This results in good-minded people defending the "right" of for-profit insurance companies to spend 25% of our premium money on high-level executive pay and CEO salaries and multi-million dollar estates on Long island, and on propagandizing the people and buying off congress to maintain their profits, because capitalism is a "good box"!. Do you deny capitalism's objective is to get the most money for a product or service, and spend the least money in production or provision of the service or product, thereby maximizing profit? It doesn't take a doctorate in mathematics to figure it out. Sorry, but when they ALL function like this, and ALL join together (cronyism) in defending their collective turf, "shopping" really doesn't do much good.

On the other side, the "evil box" of "socialism" must not even be glanced at, because "the socialist will getcha' if ya don't watch out!". Remember the "domino effect" of communism in Southeast Asia and the Vietnam conflict? Remember the ~60,000 young American men and boys, and countless innocent Vietnamese who had to die to prevent it from happening? Guess what. The commies won! And today, the children there go to their schools in their little uniforms, the rickshaw drivers run the streets, and you get get a vacation package to see all this, eat Vietnamese cuisine, and visit the Buddhist temples.

I respectfully UNDERSTAND the anger of the tea-baggers at the dysfunctionality of our government. I too, am angry! But they insist that it CAN'T be a problem with any of the "good boxes", and BEWARE any of the "evil boxes". It seems like their solution to the problem is to bend over, grab their ankles, and ask "Please sir, may I have another".

Like it or not, the preamble of the Constitution includes "promote the general Welfare" as one of its purposes. Sorry, this is pretty broad, but that is what they said, and that is what they meant. Yes, slavery could (theoretically) be reinstated via constitutional amendments, etc., IF it were the will of what would have to be, an overwhelming majority of the people (highy unlikely)., Therefore, establishment of a national health care system is EASILY within the bounds of the "proper role of government", IF there is a majority who want it.

More later.