"The founding fathers stated purpose was to create a government of law, not men."

Please give me your source for this.

"Difficult as I'm not a big fan of pure socialism."

Then give me your definition of impure socialism. Your Britannica definition implies government control.

"I don't do "ideal governments" as such seems and oxymoron."

You can't get what you want if you can't define it.

"I prefer to look at what my values and goals are(which I've stated fairly clearly on this and other threads)., and how to best accomplish them practically. (Based on how people do act, not how I want them to act)."

Another words, you want the public to do what you think is best for them?

"I am interested in values. Personal values."

So am I. But I've never argued that the government enforce my personal values.

"If I have a basic value that says it is wrong for people to be hungry, I need to figure out ways to make that happen."

Then feed them. That's your value. But that's not what you're saying. You're saying that YOU'RE value is to REQUIRE OTHERS to feed the hungry also.

"It starts with individual values, not with some external dogma."

I agree. If every individual followed their stated values, we would be better off.

"What are your values?.... Family, integrity, charity, respect are values, the individuallity is a value."

I don't understand how you can say that "family" is a value. Family isn't a personality trait that I can improve upon. Family is a state of having relatives.

My number one value is honesty. Right up there with honesty is freedom and tolerence. Tolerence being defined as letting one do what they want... not the absence of complaint. From there, I aim for the basic concept of "first, do no harm". I think that most problems are covered in that basic premise. I never considered respect a value. I believe that people either earn it or throw it away. I consider volunteering more important then charity. Charity is easy, and I think that most people do it out of guilt. Volunteering is giving what is most important to me... my time here on earth.

"If I understand my values, then whatever system I propose has to be consistent (if I value integrity)."

I couldn't disagree more. My values are very personal to me. I do not expect everyone to be honest. I wish they were... I really do. But I do not wish to outlaw lying.

"Again, it starts with the individual and builds up."

That's socialism. i.e.-'I believe in this, therefor, you must do it too'

"The thrust of what you propose is to build from some assumed-to-be-right theoretical structure down, rejecting any fact that doesn't fit and belittling anyone who doesn't agree."

I have no idea what you mean. "The thrust of what you propose"??? What did I propose?

"Claims of fraud have to be addressed, not ignored."

See... this is the problem though: In all of the US, the ONLY place where the problem of fraud seemed important this year was Florida. Hmmmm. Why?

"Who cares who was targeted? Claiming that the exclusions were deliberately based on race isn't here nor there."

I jumped into this discussion on Florida voters because a poster claimed that blacks had been targeted. I corrected them, and explained how they were wrong.

"I didn't see you argue for a stadium and you see that don't like it... I brought it up as an example of using tax-payers money and political influence for personal gain (which is related to Clinton) and in answer to early posts."

Let me try this again. I argued that Clinton was spending too much money on his apartment. You answered with a sports stadium. Why? It had nothing to do with Clinton. Neither you nor I are for sports stadiums. Now I can either assume that you are okay with Clinton spending $650,000 a year on his apartment, or you can join me in protest. Which is it?

"You replied 'Given that, I have a strong suspicion that I wouldn't like you' I'm devastated."

I guess internet dating is out for us then.

"And the statement may be too general as I've only read biographies of 6 or 7 of them. I don't disparage what was finally produced, just that looking at their lives, they don't deserve to be canonized."

Great. Tell me why you wouldn't like them. Tell me why your current friends are superior.

"Did you every study it?"

The Constitution itself? No. Books on it? Yes.

"Have you read "The Federalist's Papers"."

Tiny chunks in different reference sources, but not in bulk.

"Hamilton's Essay's?"

Nope. From the little I've read of Hamilton, I can't stand him as a writer.

"Any of Jefferson's commentaries?"

I believe a book on his letters and notes, but commentaries? Define.

"Read any of the minutes of the Constitutional Conventions?"

A book on the Constitutional Convention, yes. The minutes, no.

"Any collections of editorials from the various colonial newspapers of the time?"

I think Common Sense is the only one that I've read in it's entirety.

"If so, then we have interpreted things differently and I'd be interested in discussing your views off-forum."

If you've read half of what you claim to have read, I'd be shocked.

"If not, your opinions are based on hearsay, the opinion/analysis of others who support your preconceived opinions, and urban legend."

I like how you claim that YOUR references are ***THE*** references that one should read when forming an opinion on the Constitution. Just when I thought that I was a Constitution snob, I find a bigger one.

I never picked up a book on the Constitution because it would "support my preconcieved notions". Indeed, most of what I've read is too thick to pick up in a bookstore just based on a quick read. I started reading up on the Constitution mainly because I found that there were so many people like yourself who claimed to KNOW.

As in every piece of history, there are many shades of what people consider the truth. But I've found that the best way to find the truth is to read different accounts of what happened, to read the bio's of the people involved, and figure out who you can trust.

For instance, Pauline Maier points out in American Scripture that Jefferson actually got some of his facts wrong in recounting the Constitutional Conventions later in life.

"I was getting at the Constitution as a framework and set of rules under which the legislature passes laws to accomplish its purposes. They interpret how far they are allowed to go."

They interpret? No they don't! They are LIMITED by the Constitution, and certainly, not willingly. When they break the bounds, the SC pulls them back.

"All nice but I hope you have more of a personal value system than that."

You didn't ask me what my personal value system was. You asked me what success was.

"I think you may find that all those things (which we all want), are merely satisfying. And fairly superficial."

Success in life is multi-layered. We were talking business. I gave you the business answer of success. My personal success has little to do with by business success...with one exception. If I am unsuccessful in one, it most definitely hurts the other.

"Have you been poor working 40 (or more) hours a week? Or know people who are?"

You're going to have to give me a "poor" scale for that. Are we talking about the federal guidelines for being poor?

"Of course, it's a matter of intent. Are they interested in actually producing something or just making the six figures? And, yes, I think it matters."

Pardon, but we were talking about whether a smart person can make a ton of bucks in a dot com. Their intent has nothing to do with it. You said that smart people do not work for companies that go under in 6 months. I disagree.

>>>If general employees list salary as 4th or 6th on their list, is it that surprising that they aren't getting paid more?>>> "Since the employee is the one doing the work, yes I am."

Ahhh... I get your thinking now. Management doesn't work. Only the people on the line do. And even if the people who work on the line put salary as their 4th or 6th most important thing, you STILL think that they should get paid more.

"And if salary is what its all about, its not surprising that companies have major productivity, turnover and customer service issues."

ummm... we live in a nation that has the number one productivity of any nation (outside of nations that employ sweat shops). How can you say that we have productivity problems?

"On almost any type of management that views money as the primary motivator."

Most modern management schemes reject money as the prime motivator of employees.

John