Do you agree with this description of the USA's core values?

[Skip Intro]

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

[billbuckhead]

1. I think the USA was founded to replace monarchy with corporations

John Hancock had the largest signature for a reason.

[Skip Intro]

2. and the corporate influence/control of our govt/treasury is the natural

extension of that?

Is that how we got here, and does that foreshadow paths we must take, all but certain eventualities?

I mean, are you saying the US was set up, from the begining, to be nothing more than a corporate orgy/rape?

The whole thing's a sham?

[billbuckhead]

10. I really believe that's been true for most of our history

Jefferson and Madison wanted an 11th amendent to reigh in corporations.

Jefferson Was Right

By: Dr. Michael P. Byron - 05/24/03
"Most Americans don’t know it but Thomas Jefferson, along with James Madison worked assiduously to have an 11th Amendment included into our nation’s original Bill of Rights. This proposed Amendment would have prohibited “monopolies in commerce.” The amendment would have made it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, or to give money to politicians, or to otherwise try to influence elections. Corporations would be chartered by the states for the primary purpose of “serving the public good.” Corporations would possess the legal status not of natural persons but rather of “artificial persons.” This means that they would have only those legal attributes which the state saw fit to grant to them. They would NOT; and indeed could NOT possess the same bundle of rights which actual flesh and blood persons enjoy. Under this proposed amendment neither the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, nor any provision of that document would protect the artificial entities known of as corporations.

Jefferson and Madison were so insistent upon this amendment because the American Revolution was in substantial degree a revolt against the domination of colonial economic and political life by the greatest multinational corporation of its age: the British East India Company. After all who do you think owned the tea which Sam Adams and friends dumped overboard in Boston Harbor? Who was responsible for the taxes on commodities and restrictions on trade by the American colonists? It was the British East India Company, of course. In the end the amendment was not adopted because a majority in the first Congress believed that already existing state laws governing corporations were adequate for constraining corporate power. Jefferson worried about the growing influence of corporate power until his dying day in 1826. Even the more conservative founder John Adams came to harbor deep misgivings about unchecked corporate power.
----------snip-----------------------
<http://www.liberalslant.com/mpb052403.htm>

[punpirate]

9. Don't think so...

... and here's why. Where in the Constitution do you see the word "corporation?" Nowhere. Some of the founders distrusted them mightily--particularly Jefferson and Madison (Hamilton was much more comfortable with the monied elite handling the affairs of state).

In fact, if you go back to the Declaration of Independence (which was largely Jefferson's work), you'll find that there are only slightly-veiled references to the evils of the major corporation of the day--the British East India Company--and of the determination of the Colonies to rid themselves of that influence.

The Federal papers and the Constitution left corporations to the states, erroneously believing that such would minimize their impact on the Federal Republic.

Little did Jefferson know of what might happen later.... *sigh*

Cheers.

[NAO]

3. As is the case with "God", that statement is not in the Constitution *nt

[NAO]

4. Does "arbitrary authority" cover economic coercion from inherited wealth?

I think inherited wealth is definitely a case of "arbitrary authority".

Monarchs transmitted arbitrary, often undeserved political power to their descendents. Rich people transmit arbitrary, often undeserved economic power to their descendents. Should'nt we be protected from that?

[welshTerrier2]

5. the question is too vague

do you mean the value on which the country was founded or the current values of the American people and our institutions?

because we apparently believe in a capitalistic system that promotes competition and survival of the fittest over cooperation and furthering the best interests of the society ...

[Skip Intro]

6. sorry, its the definition of "liberalism"

as per dictionary.com

the word progressive is missing, yes, but I, having looked up this meaning to throw back at an aggressive anti-freedom right-winger, became enamored with the description.

as much infatuation as substance, I guess.

[welshTerrier2]

8. what wasn't clear to me about your question ...

was whether you were asking about the "ideals" on which the country was founded or the reality of where the American people are actually at ...

i support the ideas described in your OP but i think capitalism "sits on top of" and corrupts the political ideology you described ...

[punpirate]

7. Wrong question.

What was intended 220-odd years ago is immaterial. What we are now is what matters.

On edit, I don't mean that to sound caustic or dismissive, but, the simple fact is that we were left with an infinitely mutable Constitution, because it was created with the power of amendment. The founders had good ideas and bad alike. Some of those bad ideas have been winnowed out over time. But, still, we need to assess who we are at the moment, and who we might wish to be, rather than to harken back to somewhat romantic notions about who we once were. We were, at our origins, both good and bad.

Cheers.

[Darranar]

11. No. National constructs do not have core values. n/t