The Republican, Democratic and Libertarian agenda seems to be to expand government through corporations, which are immune from the constitutional restrictions imposed on the government. The use of telecommunications industry by the federal government is a case in point. Accordingly, the constitution must be amended to protect the people from corporations, in addition to the government. The protections of the constitution are meaningless if they apply only to governments, but vanish should someone or their communications or medical records happen to find their way into a corporation.

Perhaps market logic will ultimately save the human race from its silly nationalism--or at least make the issues apparent. I can hardly wait for global corporations to become so powerful that national governments outlive their usefulness. By then it will be obvious that constitutional protections from the government aren't enough: those protections will need to be extended to protections from corporations themselves. Granting them amnesty is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. They need to be held accountable as if they were part of the government, since they have been acting by proxy for the government. The founding fathers did not foresee this development.

This is perhaps off-topic, but I fail to see how the political philosophy of privatizing everything-including the Strategic Air Command--would do anything but exacerbate the situation. The pro-2nd amendment libertarian survivalist property-rights uber alles mindset would make matters worse, as global corporations rush in to monopolize whatever public resources the libertarians will happily sell to them, somewhat like the apocryphal account of the American Indians selling Manhattan for $24 in glass beads, only on a far greater scale. If that happens, the country will find itself in the world's biggest depression, as private corporations withhold access to their private property--formerly government property sold to them by the libertarians--on speculation that other global interests might purchase those resources for a profit. Such are the catastrophic consequences of believing that protecting property rights is the highest conceivable moral good.

Alas, the founding fathers did foresee this development, and indeed the power of wealth has always sought to subvert democracy in America as an impediment to its profits...

I am aware of the lip service paid to the power of wealth by the founding fathers (and the other non-founding fathers you mention, such as Milton Friedman and Eisenhower). The more nuanced point is that this lip service never managed to find its way into the constitution, which is designed to protect the property rights (a notion which it leaves essentially unanalyzed) of the wealthy against the impediment of democracy.

There are constitutional limitations on government, but not on corporations.

"The real thing to worry about is the health of the bond insurance industry." Are you serious? The collapse of the housing credit market isn't sufficiently worrisome?

"There is no dirt being moved in the Southwest," according to one CEO involved in construction. But the real thing to worry about is the bond market. Perhaps that was stated in jest.

Reading a sentence fragment of Noonan's is enough to depress cognitive ability in every measurable category, out of proportion to exposure. But carping about an earnestly un-nuanced intellectual neutrino weight like Noonan won't improve anyone's understanding of politics.

To that end, I suggest "The Logic of Political Survival," by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, et al, published by MIT Press. Mesquita and his coauthors present a game theoretic analysis of how politicians survive in office.

An excerpt from the book will illustrate a level of political insight neither conceivable nor possible by reading Noonan. De Mesquita writes that a president (or dictator or monarch) has three tasks before him or her, all of which stem from the essence of politics, which is staying in office.

"First, they [a president, dictator or monarch] choose a tax rate, which generates government revenue and influences how hard people will work. Second, they spend revenue in a manner designed to keep incumbents in office, particularly by sustaining support among members of their winning coalition. Finally, they provide various mixes of public and private goods."

"Pouf, Poof, Whatever"--an identity which made its appearance to comment on Glen Greenwald's Noonan column--will wish to proceed directly to the technical appendices of "The Logic of Political Survival," which present the mathematical theory of the selectorate. "Pouf, Poof, Whatever" should also read the book before commenting.

"Remember, the government owns no money of its own; it's all owned by the taxpayers."

Wrong. Government revenue belongs to the government. It may return some portion of this to taxpayers, but what it retains belongs to the government.

Um, no offense but, is it really healthy to have so few vowels in your handle?

Really, I'm very curious about this.

"Xlp Thplylp" is pronounced "Ksulp Thulp-lee-oolp." The accent is on the "thulp," and the pitch descends somewhat with the pronunciation of "oolp." The paucity of vowels can be offset somewhat by increasing fiber intake.