It's much more than just a 'creepy proposal' as evidenced from this quote: "made up of Experts--public spirited men of great vision who would sit on governmental commissions and look out for the public good--to ensure fair rates, to eliminate rate discrimination, and to regulate other aspects of unjust business practices."

These people are the most dangerous Socialist/Progressive/Technocrats that have ever existed. The biggest problem is that the majority of Americans will only see the highlights and not understand the details. Who are these 'Experts--public spirited men of great vision', who 'look out for the public good'? Where is the individual citizen and human in this picture? He's the proletariat.

That's 'We the People'.

That was a tough read. Very workers of the world unite. If you click on the link to the United Americanism they have an 'emotion chart'.

One thing hit me particularly: 'Instead the modern day laborer has no choice but to interact with the commercial entities available to him in already established societies, if he wants job security, which he has the constitutional right to pursue, a right the constitution is supposed to protect, having the individual right to pursue happiness; the freedom to elevate themselves from worry of economic destitution, of self-determination. But if the commercial entities have colluded to promote predatory business practices--increasing profits at the cost of the rights of the laborer--the modern day laborer has no choice but to be taken advantage of if they want job security. Thus, our individual rights are infringed upon by the CEOs, and no individual or organization has the right to infringe upon another citizen's rights, thus commerce must be regulated." My copy of the Constitution must be defective. Nowhere does it say I have a guaranteed right to job security.

These people are scary.

So the right to conduct commerce has to go through a government gatekeeper? Wow. Talk about the instantaneous creation of a black market. All anyone of any historical knowledge has to do is say "Isn't this EXACTLY what the Soviet Union did?" And they would be exactly right.

Not to mention the direct parallelism to part III of "Atlas Shrugged" ;)

Just scanning this piece of trash was bad enough. A few spots I stopped to actually read exactly what was written, I had to read and reread because I was certain I missed something - no I didn't!

A few quotes (and by no means the most incendiary);

"Men and women are rewarded in reverse ratio to how much they perform. The more you do, the less you get. The worker is exploited. The owners are living parasitically on the backs of the workers.

The ownership class siphons from workers the luxuries they provide. Society rewards the owner managerial class as respectable citizens. He is one of our respected citizens, and perhaps is praised for his liberal donations to the poor, strutting around securely in social protection."

and

"Workers are exploited, the victims of wage slavery. They do not get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Wage slaves who are nominally free are not equal citizens to the class that actually controls the political legislation."

and

Labor is the superior of capital, capital exists for labor, so deserves much higher consideration. The steel of Lincoln's notion was: The man comes before the dollar, the people before property."

I've got to pause and ask, "if a business is not able to pay a worker for the work done, but must pay a worker based on what the government "thinks" the worker did, how long until the worker won't have a job?? Oh, I forgot, the business owner CAN'T dismiss his workers and go out of business - he owes everything he has to his workers. The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves over this travesty!

AS, a work of fiction?

Not so much, these days.

They are wrong. The Constitution doesn't make commerce a collective right and not an individual right. It ALLOWS the government to regulate commerce with foreign countries and between the states. Commerce, itself, remains an individual right, limited only by federal regulation as described in the Constitution. What they propose is socialism, which is incompatible with everything in the Constitution.

What's really creepy is when people write something, quoting someone else, but twist their words with the use of [...] to cut out what doesn't fit their spin. These folks like to use the word welfare in a way the means "supporting", not "for the good of". It is for the welfare of America to create jobs, bring down the job creators. This is just plain rediculous.

Well, this is about the most evil thing I've ever read. One might wish it were only one of The Onion's more extravagant concoctions. I wish it were something we did not have to take seriously and just laugh it out of existence. Sadly, many people will be influenced by it and spread this virulent meme emotionally, not rationally.

The author has cleverly thrown in every buzzword, every trigger to appeal to any political contingent. Everyone will find at least one sentence or sentiment to yearn for or agree with. It is a Trojan whore, a sophomoric regurgitation of political jargon from every side of the spectrum. It would be ludicrous if not so dangerous in its advocacy of totalitarian tyranny wrapped in lip service to individual rights and fueled by envy.

This writer has missed his calling by a couple of generations. He is tailor-made to have been Hitler's propaganda minister. About the only abridgment of rights I did not see in his screed is criminalization of any criticism of government policies.

The bloke has clearly put a lot of time into his formulation. It would take an equal or greater amount of time for someone to dissect every sentence into its naked premises. Its character, however, can be summed up in Kipling's famous line, "... the truth you've spoken, Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools."

Poorly written, terrible grammer, idiotic concepts. Trash heap of history type stuff.

Just look at the comments on this piece of trash.. this is a shot over the bow by the Elizabeth Warren gang. I am now pretty convinced that they will be running her. Now is when we really need to be helping people to understand the basics like from where our rights come and what proper rights actually are..

Sure wish I hadn't wasted my time reading that drivel. The author presumes that individuals are too lazy to find the highest bidder for their labor, and also posits that the American people have always wanted Federal directives to supersede State law. In these elemental positions, the author is simply wrong.

That was an irrational and scary proposal. Here's what I anonymously posted in reply to 1 comment:

I would add that there is no "right" to employment or job security. As free individuals, we have natural rights to engage in free trade, buying property and businesses, and selling our labor. There is no guarantee of the price we receive, however, since the buyer has the freedom to negotiate or not purchase. One of the big problems (and there are many...) with this author's convoluted logic and misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution is the diagnosis of our main problems being tied to corruption that exists in some big businesses (in one form or another). Big businesses cannot force you to buy their products and services. They cannot throw you in jail or confiscate your property. The biggest source of our country's problems today is due to Big Government, which has a monopoly on power and plenty of ways to immorally use force against individuals and big businesses alike. Many people incorrectly think the government's purpose is to magically create equal outcomes in life. Instead, the government's purpose is to protect our natural individual freedoms, staying out of our bedrooms and free markets, and treating us equally under the law (no picking favorites or robbing Peter to pay Paul in exchange for his vote...). Thus, crony capitalism (which isn't real capitalism) is wrong, as is socialism. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely... A Big Government that is big enough to try to create "equal outcomes" is one that ends as a totalitarian state. We should all avoid this danger by rejecting naïve, idyllic policies like the author's above: progressivism, "equal outcomes", social justice, and all other forms of caffeine-free communism... Let freedom ring...

Creepy... I agree this comes from someone with a very limited understanding of the Constitution and the interpretations of its meaning by the U.S. judiciary.

ATLAS SHRUGGED C OMES TO LIFE

Why are "progressives" always the most REgressive -- wanting to return us to times when king, princes, dukes etc. did for us what they saw as out best interest!

If people were looking to adopt a moral code that sanctions theft and tyranny, which uses constitutional chicanery, this would certainly be it.

First, Richard M. Nixon arguably was first to propose Directive 10-289 in real life. Think "Ninety-day Wage and Price Freeze."

Second, that "general welfare" clause is very much abused. Maybe Judge Narragansett's reforms involved replacing "general welfare" with "welfare of all the States" wherever it appeared.

Third--I agree. This does look like Directive 10-289, and in much greater detail.

The United Americanism website is creepy and weird. Is it made by one 26 y/o guy? He has 4 followers on Twitter, but the website is pretty slick. I wonder if he is supported by any large organization.

Why does it talk about Stage I w/o mentioning Stage 2?

Some of your are saying it's "socialist", but I can't understand what it's saying.

I have read in the past also Hamilton wanted to go right back to the kind of government we had just fought a revolution over. He also challenged Aaron Burr to a duel where he should have let well enough alone. Did he progress? Yes he did right into a coffin.

Who defines what is "unjust" and who is the "expert" in deciding all the claptrap mentioned in this article? I have real doubts that the definitions of both would fit within the understanding of most folks. Probably decided by more idiots in the government agencies, chosen for their allegiance to the party line. Shades of every socialist/communist state in history. Not a good fit for the Constitution nor the nation.
Oh, wait a minute, he lives in S. Cal. Okay, I can dismiss his writings as a deluded useful idiot attempting to please his party bosses. This kind of stuff doesn't come out of a vacuum, he had to be paid to spend the kind of time he did in writing it.

“Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”
― Frédéric Bastiat

I am very confused by the article and the website. Whether we like it or not, hasn't the gov't interpreted the Constitution to mean it can regulate business and provide for the needy? Why do we need another Amendment?