A Democratic Suspicion of Capitalism

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.

Free-market capitalism has had a long and interesting history in America, and political parties have driven the tenuous debate over time. Ever since the compromise to move the capitol of the general government to its present residence in the District of Columbia, in return for the assumption of state debt, there has been a stream of political discourse that persists to this day. A suspicion exists, and will continue to weave its way through our political discourse, that the accumulation of wealth and property by a minority interest will inevitably create a super class that will surreptitiously control the reins of the federal authority to the detriment of the common interest.  There is a presupposition, and a misplaced paranoid notion, at the root of radical Democratic political theory, that private wealth and property, when amassed in great quantities by few individuals or entities, will, automatically, with few exceptions, lead to abusive actions that threaten our republican form of democracy.



Great wealth in the hands of a minority, in fact, is a natural circumstance of human history.  Nowhere in the civilized world, currently, or in the past, is wealth accumulated by a majority of the people, although, several countries try to redistribute wealth to those who do not possess it. It is a great error of reasonable judgment to suggest that legislative assemblies can correct this natural phenomenon.  What legislative assemblies can try to do is limit the abusive tendencies of wealth that actually corrupt the great common interest of American citizens, which does not require a focused attack on those who have wealth and property, just those who criminally acquire it, or fraudulently employ it. America’s republican system is not broken, nor is it run by a group of ravenous wolves. The proprietors of government, those citizens giving their consent to be governed, are not utilizing the system correctly.  Our economic and political troubles result from improper operation, not a faulty structure.



Those who espouse the inequities of free-market capitalism automatically think that morally corrupt individuals get special advantage through the governing apparatus over the common interest, and currently using wealth and property accumulation for that purpose.  This may be the case in some, but certainly not all, and every, instance.  To suggest that every big corporation, wealthy individual, or mysterious entity, are actually controlling our elected public servants, in general, in return for special privileges under the law than any other citizen, is a devious ploy, and a paranoid conception that has been paraded around for two-hundred years by some popular demagogues that seek to confiscate property under the guise of some gross inequity being done to the people.  The American people are not controlled, they control.



The need to provide federal taxpayer liquidity to certain financial institutions, even though some did not really need it, but took it anyway, and those forced to take it, ultimately reassured public confidence in the economy.  An ordered dismantling of large failing institutions is proper, rather than providing taxpayer capital, even though it can be profitable.  Certain people hold the view that there are special advantages given to select corporations.  How can this be when certain national corporations are paying higher corporate taxes than their foreign competitors, medium and small businesses held to higher labor and safety standards, regulated at a greater extent, coupled with private investors paying capital gains taxes and other investment taxes, not to mention all the other various federal, state, and local tax vehicles that operate on wealthy, and not so wealthy, individuals?



A direct tax on income, sanctified by a constitutional amendment, according to the amount of income, which is an arbitrarily defined range, is blatantly unfair, but is the law, and operates in an unjust fashion. That law was the result of a populist revolt, when Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic Party in general, co-opted the notion of amending the constitution to place a direct tax on income, not apportioned by enumeration. It was an instance of wealth redistribution, liberally extended over the past century to the point of becoming a burdensome blemish of inequity.



The populist uproar of the late 19th century that spilled over into the early 20th century has a line of paranoid thinking that presupposes individuals with wealth and property, corporations like banks and insurance companies, will automatically combine and conspire with our elected public servants to act contrary to the common interest through the control of legislative assemblies. I am not blind to the coziness that exists between corporate business, media, and the governing bureaucracy, but to suggest that the whole system is corrupt, fraudulent, and broken is a dangerous game to be playing with the confidence of the American people. The ballot box, and temperate citizens, can correct or reform our republican system, and extend and preserve our ancient liberties.



The loudest and most radical opponents of corporate America and free-market capitalism have emanated from the Democratic Party. There is an element within the party that still possesses certain political philosophies directly traced to Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, which every American citizen should closely study. A deep suspicion of banks and paper currency existed then, as it does currently today. This is not to say that every law emanating from those two administrations were ill judged. It should be noted, though, that a consistent theme runs in the Democratic Party, and with some individuals in general, that capitalism and the accumulation of wealth should be zealously challenged and curtailed by state power. The characters and times have changed, the issues remain, the questions have the same focus, but societal circumstances have dramatically changed for the better. America is more free and greater today, and posterity will try to make it more perfect tomorrow.



It is an extreme error of reason to presuppose that the common interest, that amorphous fourth branch of our federal arrangement, can be easily controlled, or subjected to, a not so secret conspiracy between wealth accumulators and legislative assemblies. As if every corporation having a market cap of $50 billion, or individuals making over $250K, are some how unfairly earning income at the great expense of public welfare, or the so-called laboring class. A radical, but influential, element, residing in the Democratic Party, actually believes mysterious malefactors of public justice are waging a subversive war against Liberty and democracy, all the while sacrificing public justice and the general welfare, just to accumulate more power and influence over us. It is an absurd notion, formed on the paranoid basis of a conspiracy theory that suggests capital interests are always working against the general interest of the working class, who do not directly own the producing process, and do not get their fair share of profit. The result is an attempt to use the government to confiscate property and wealth from most citizens, and redistribute it to the poor and misfortunate few, who are seemingly in that situation because of a capitalist system that is unfair and corrupt. Most American citizens are not wealthy or poor, but they certainly carry a greater burden than they should. They are not fooled by dissimulative practices propagated by a few popular demagogues.

Vote Scott Sipprelle for Congress

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.


The Fair Haven Mayor has worked on the local zoning board, recently became mayor, still serving in that capacity, waging battles over cell-phone tower placement, erecting parks, writing letters to editors, lowering taxes, getting the garbage collected, parading around his quaint little town and all he did for it, all the while drumming up weak support on a continual self-promoting tour that has gone on for quite some time already, which has not produced much at all. Do you know what Scott Sipprelle was doing? He was working in the private sector, creating real jobs, and dealing with the complex array of regulatory measures that make it difficult to be successful, especially in New Jersey. That is practical experience needed in a legislator when trying to identify and correct impediments to economic growth.

The Mayor of ye old Fair Haven has assailed Mr. Sipprelle’s character from the beginning. All of you know the story, the one about the evil “hedge fund manager,” and now “venture capitalist,” oh my, very scary, let me go on, or maybe, short, but with a covered option mind you. The Mayor’s intention, or that of his wire-pullers, is to impugn Mr. Sipprelle’s character with the artful device of guilty by association, and capitalize, as a desperate, opportunistic, and perpetual candidate does, on the swirling fears and apprehensions buzzing around our political discourse. It is usually marked by immediate and passionate strokes of boldness, but usually calms during the normal course of time, when reason and logic overcome cynicism and insult. This kind of dissimulative behavior is all too predictable, very stale, and shows this citizen, at least, that the Mayor does not have any real issues, or material differences in policy.

Just look at the website http://supportscott2010.com/ and you will see more good than bad in Sipprelle’s particulars, rather then the general and wispy notions expressed on the Mayor’s website. I recommend Fair Haven’s Mayor to view his opponent’s website, it is full of great ideas and insights, maybe he can remain as a public servant, and put those all too familiar character assassinations to rest, and put some of Sipprelle’s ideas to work in his tidy little town. We do not need anyone that is so quick to avoid debate on the real issues. The Mayor seeks to distract reason to evoke certain emotions, but, that is the fine quality of lawyers who shine when they seek to sway the mind, and mostly the heart, of jurors, in this case the electorate, no matter what side of the law they argue; see, it is really cheap, and too easy to play that old game, it is opportunistic rabble.

We need real ideas and legitimate arguments from our candidates, not general talking points derived from polls asking .0005% of the population. The only poll that matters is the one conducted in the ballot box, and that is even an incomplete assessment of popular will, 60% vote, what a disgrace. Polls are crafted from the semantically arranged question that is intended, or not, to evoke a certain response, or push a specific agenda or viewpoint.

VOTE SCOTT SIPPRELLE FOR CONGRESS; he possesses the private sector experience, independence, integrity, and character needed in a public servant representing us in our national assembly.