The Ati-thesis , Marxism


"By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[3] Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argues that state capitalism would be the final stage of capitalism consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state.[4]"

Quoted from Wikepedia

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

L.R. 492: Governor LePage's Unconstitutional Proposal

 

 L.R. 492, is a  bill the LePage administration submitted recently to clarify the law exempting some aviation companies from paying property taxes.
The language of the bill is not yet public, but George Gervais, Gov. Paul LePage's commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development, said Wednesday that it is designed to ensure that the law exempting aviation uses is applied consistently.
 -Steve Mistle  Portland press Herald
What Governor Lepage and the state's  Department of Economic and Community Development  are proposing is is a violation of the Home Rule Amendment of the Maine State Constitution, providing that property taxes are included in the charters of municipal corporations. There cannot be anything more clearly " local and municipal in character" than property taxes- which are based on property located within the municipality and are justified as payment for services that the municipality provides to the property owner.

Article VIII.

Part Second.

Municipal Home Rule.

Section 1.  Power of municipalities to amend their charters.  The inhabitants of any municipality shall have the power to alter and amend their charters on all matters, not prohibited by Constitution or general law, which are local and municipal in character.  The Legislature shall prescribe the procedure by which the municipality may so act.

LePage is suggesting a mandate for all municipalities and so it is not exclusive to the "quasi" situation in Brunswick which the Portland Press Herald reports as one in which one municipality (Brunswick) is charging property taxes for property located in another municipality (The MRRA).

The MRRA is described as a "quasi-municipal agency" by author Steve Mistle , with "quasi" being a new word function that instantly legalizes anything what so ever - or at least is  intended to give that impression. Or as the MRRA describes itself on its website, it is a “public municipal corporation by State law (not a local unit of government)- in other words local governance that is not locally governed as established by the state, which grants unto itself the authority to govern this local ( municipal) government.

Being that the property for which Brunswick is charging property taxes is not located in the municipality of Brunswick, the tax is not local in character since the term "local" as applied to municipalities means within the jurisdiction of the municipality- ie within the geographical borders of the municipality. In order for the MRRA to charge property tax on the property that is within its jurisdiction, the local side of this "quasi concoction" would have to charge property taxes to the state side of the quasi concoction's identity. This is a bit problematic because laws governing what the state government can do are different from laws governing what local governments can do and even the term "quasi" will not magically make that go away.

The constitution also states :
GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 21. State mandates. For the purpose of more fairly apportioning the cost of government and providing local property tax relief, the State may not require a local unit of government to expand or modify that unit's activities so as to necessitate additional expenditures from local revenues unless the State provides annually 90% of the funding for these expenditures from State funds not previously appropriated to that local unit of government. Legislation implementing this section or requiring a specific expenditure as an exception to this requirement may be enacted upon the vote of 2/3 of all members elected to each House. This section must be liberally construed.
So what LePage is suggesting is that all the taxpayers in Maine should have to pay for 90% of the property tax waiver that Lepage is suggesting should be mandated for a government preferred industry- aviation- which repeats what is wrong with the MRRA- a municipal corporation that is paid for by all the taxpayer of Maine under the pretense that jobs located in the geographical area of the former naval base benefit the entire state. Why should jobs located in that area benefit the entire state and not so for jobs located anywhere in the state? Kestrel Industries is not in the transportation business- it just builds the planes and even that in another state.

The Home Rule Amendment leaves the authority for economic development at the local level where the effects of that development are the greatest.That's the way it should be. Each area has industries from which it derives the highest impact of benefit of that industry within the entire state. That high impact benefit is "local in nature"
HOME RULE AMENDMENT
Section 2
. Construction of buildings for industrial use. For the purposes of fostering, encouraging and assisting the physical location, settlement and resettlement of industrial and manufacturing enterprises within the physical boundaries of any municipality, the registered voters of that municipality may, by majority vote, authorize the issuance of notes or bonds in the name of the municipality for the purpose of purchasing land and interests therein or constructing buildings for industrial use, to be leased or sold by the municipality to any responsible industrial firm or corporation.

Governor Lepage seems to be suffering from the state deficit syndrome. Here's a  suggestion for you Lepage- If you want to make the laws more consistent- then that which should be the measure of consistency is our constitution. and a novel idea- Dismantal The unconstitutional Maine State Inc- that vast network of corporations that serve as "instrumentalites of the state" and are justified by saying the magic words, "economic development" ,and which all together comprise an  "enterprise" by standards defined in the Patriot Act:

(racketeering)
(4) “enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity
Maine State Inc, has remained largely unaccountable to the taxpayer since its birth with the Maine Development Foundation in 1977, although it has expanded almost every year at an unknown total cost to the taxpayer and by now might be  in control of the highest concentration of capital within the state- which it redistributes to its favored industries. The Department of  Economic and Community Development, which is trying to put forth an unconstitutional mandate for state control over local property taxes is just one part of the vast Maine State Inc. Who or what - if not Maine State inc- should be accountable to Maine's consistent placement of "last" in Forbes list of best states for business?



If Maine stopped playing the bribe game which is the underlying reason for the proposed L.R. 492, we might not be able to attract those companies that demand bribes of every form and nature- but we might attract a new breed of businesses hungry for a fair playing field for all. And that might even make Maine one of the most interesting states for growing a business.

 
Maine State Inc is a violation of Article IV part Third Section14 of the Maine State Constitution
Section 14.  Corporations, formed under general laws.  Corporations shall be formed under general laws, and shall not be created by special Acts of the Legislature, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where the objects of the corporation cannot otherwise be attained; and, however formed, they shall forever be subject to the general laws of the State.
Full Disclosure; I am not a lawyer- but I do understand the English language in which our state constitution is written.


Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Professor Seldman's Low Brow Argument Advocates the Over Throw of the US Constitution

As I am setting out to write Part Three of my Madison VS Marx series, I had in mind to make it be about education. This is an article published in the New york Times calling for  Americans to give up on our constitution.  written by a member of the US academic class, an "esteemed" educator sharing Obama's alleged Alma mater, Harvard - only Louis Michael Seidman. actually is a constitutional professor at Goergetown University

The article by professor Louis Michael Seidman echoes the call by our current president when, as an educator, in 2001, Obama called for the Supreme Court to  break with the constraints of our constitution.


Professor Seidman identifies himself as a progressive in the paper he authored , Left Out. The term "progressive" simply means progressing towards socialism which then "progresses" toward Communism, and so is just the current popular language signifying Marxism. The term "conservatism" in the  USA means conserving the political philosophy of our founding fathers as preserved in the Federalist Papers and realized in our founding documents- including the United States Constitution which professor Seidman, is now so emboldened as to openly call for the over throw there of.

In Professor Seidmans' paper Left Out he makes this statement:

Second, crime is not only an academic preoccupation; it is also a subject of
political debate. It is important, therefore, to distinguish between what might
loosely be labeled highbrow positions and low- or middlebrow positions on
criminal justice. In much of this essay, I will be discussing highbrow positions;
at the end, I will turn briefly to low- and middlebrow views.

While in the New York times article Professor Seidman clearly is making a lowbrow argument with statements such as this:

 Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action.


Professor Seidman is using his bully pulpit to perpetuate the Marxian class warfare rhetoric and to frame the US Constitution as a constitution written by and for "rich white men" - not our professors exact terms but close enough. The professor moves toward the high or middle brow when he uses the term "propertied men"- which in Marxian rhetoric is the same as "the bourgeoisie" and then our Marxian professor disingenuously occludes from that picture that the founders of his progressive philosophy also came from the propertied classes- although Marx lived his life among radical academics and never participated in the responsibilities of property ownership- only in accepting handouts from the same to finance their political activism aimed at abolishing private property ownership- which is clearly also the agenda of the Obama presidency.

Furthermore The Professor chooses to occlude from his representation of history the fact that slavery was an issue of great contention during the founding of this country but it was clear that trying to resolve the issue of slavery at the same time as trying to sell the Union would just mean that there would be no Union formed between the North and the South. The professor is not ethically challenged to acknowledge that Madison spoke out many times against slavery. The professor is using our Pravda media as a bully pulpit for a "low brow" argument, which as he makes clear by the positioning of "The Romantic Model" as last in his paper, that our professor is well aware that the lowbrow argument is based in emotionalism and disinformation and not reason. The left is adapt at milking that while posing as a educator in and of America's ivy leagues institutions.
F. The Romantic Model: This model is not much discussed any more, but it animates some left reaction to the criminal justice system. At least, it animates my own reaction. The image plays off the left's historic hatred of authority and attraction to unmediated freedom. This model suggests that the criminal is a romantic outlaw, unconstrained by bourgeois inhibition and fighting against an unjust social order.
So here we have the progressive professor- the proponents of ever expanding government making a "romantic" argument against authority- and for what - to over throw the authority of the US Constitution- which is founded on a belief that the smallest size of government possible - without descending into anarchy is the best size. This is the typical hypocrisy of the progressive's political rhetoric.

If there is a silver lining to every dark cloud, in the case of America's current economic crisis it may well be that fewer young people will be attending "institutions of higher learning" where they will be the target of this anti-American indoctrination that has long ago infiltrated our University systems and through the University has spread the indoctrinated into positions of power throughout our once free land.