> Lots of silliness here. All effective reform "legitimate" the system by
> making it work better, or at least less destructively, for those on the
> bottom. If you oppose reforms on this basis, you will cut yourself off from
> all political activity except for PL-ish demand for total revolution NOW!
> Moreover, reforms are achieved by affected the process of legislation and
> regulation. So, if you accept that refiorms are good and necessary, you have
> to support lobbuing for and otherwise trying to effect them through the
> esrablished channels. Otherwise, you will be out in the streets yelling for
> reforms that will be implemented, if at all, without your participation.
> A small point. The Sherman Antitrust Act was and is a moderately effective
> reform that has been fairly successful in promoting competition.
> The comments about Jefferson and the Constitution are almost too silly to
> discuss. J was no great fan of the C, which he did not sign precisely
> because
> of its comparative conservatism, And as for the anti-majoritarainsim od the
> C, and especially the Bill of Rights, is that such a bad thing? Some people
> might think that it is the anti-majoritarianism of the C that is precisely
> its glory, in providing discrete and insular minorities a defense against
> majoritarianian oppression. --jks
1) Re. lobbying, I didn't express opposition to it per se (nor reform for
that matter), I cited it as one part of overall Nader 'reform from above'
strategy. RN & associated groups may or not be 'squeaky clean' regarding
'public interest' (term popularized by some folks whose formative political
experiences were in so-called New Politics movement of 1960s & 1970s that
should probably be viewed with caution), but his phalanx of inter-locked
groups are 'staff organizations' in which professionals conduct most
activities and members are called upon to pay dues and be 'mobilized'
('astroturf politics').
2) Re. anti-monopoly efforts, I wrote that they were generally ineffective.
As for Sherman Anti-trust Act, only in few cases was legislation vigorously
enforced. Supreme Court blocked attempt to break up monopoly on sugar
manufacture (*U. S. v E. C. Knight Co.*, 1895), claiming that interstate
commerce covered only 'transportation' of goods, not their 'manufacture.'
If memory serves, only two people jailed for federal 'anti-trust'
violations before 1937 were Debs and Gompers.
3) Re. Jefferson & constitution, he didn't sign document because he
wasn't at 1787 Philly convention, he was in Paris as ambassador to
France. His 12/20/1787 letter to Madison (who had sent him copy
upon completion) indicates that he liked separation of powers,
liked legislative power to levy taxes, approved of direct election
of House of Rep.'s even though he thought such an assembly would
be 'illy qualified' to legislate because he supported principle
that people should only be taxed by representatives chosen directly,
he commented positively on apportionment by equal number (Senate)
& House (population) and expressed favor for legislative voting
by individual members rather than states, and he liked executive
veto power (and would have preferred similar power for judiciary,
which suggests something akin to judicial review).
TJ goes on at some length about his dislike for absence of bill of rights
absence of term limits, his oppostion to officeholder oath to maintain
constitution, and his general dislike of 'energetic government.' He
concludes by saying that even though he thinks Madison and the others
should consder another try, he will 'cheefully' support constitution if
ratified, putting his hopes in amendment process when needed.
I'm aware that Jefferson sometimes evinced antagonism towards constitution,
even suggesting to some that he opposed ratification. But he never
separated himself from those 'founders' who sought to make 1787 the
culmination of 1776 and, in fact, he contributed to that myth. Thus,
he could write to John Adams (who wasn't at constitutional convention
either) late in life about the role that each had played in ensuring
stable constitution (from guy who previously suggested that bit of
rebellion was good thing now and again).
Certainly anti-majoritarian constitution helped minority who own main
economic and productive assets be secure in their control, use, enjoyment
of such assets. Meanwhile, dual federalism (and 'concurrent majorities'
in all but name) interpretation made it bit less than glorious for some
minorities. Silly Me (aka Michael Hoover)
