And I don't think government shouldn't help those who need it, I just think it is a matter of priorities, and I felt the post I was responding to missed that.

If it is simply a matter of priorities, then shouldn't the general welfare promoted by a welfare-state have a greater priority than the warfare-state's policies of creating weapons of mass and micro destruction (ostensibly, for the common defense) that do nothing to promote the general welfare? When does a warfare-state policy of providing for the common defense become a pyrrhic defense? Like the stock market, there is no theoretical limit in welfare-state policies that promote the general welfare.

The fundamental reason peoples organize themselves into governments is to "provide for the common defense." A strong military by it's very nature promotes the general welfare because it acts as a detterent to those who would harm us, and failing that an effective means of removing them (if used properly). Just like having a good justice system promotes welfare by keeping citizens safe from each other.

Never. As I stated defense is a primary purpose of government, therefore the cost of defense is never too pricey (the only exception to this of course is when money is spent irresponsibly, i.e. a normal hammer that costs hundreds of dollars, etc). Also all states must operate under the presumption that every other state may at any time attack them, therefore creating a necessary "warfare-state policy".

I agree that providing for the common defense is a common goal of statism. However, when does being a lone superpower become a temptation to use the military for the common offense?

How Orwellian does a state have to become before it is obviously a pyrrhic defense?

I have yet to read in any fiction or non-fiction book about a disTopian state evolving through welfare-state policies that promote the general welfare.

Have you ever read Brave New World or BNW Revisited? It's not exactly the same as that, but runs along those lines. Just give and give and sooner or later the people won't want to go look for anything on their own. Orwellian book burning won't need to happen, people won't even have an interest. A large welfare state leads to a much easier maintained dictatorship.
However, this massive spending our country has gotten itself into with this fence, all other increased defense budget will turn into a pyrrhic victory in the end, if we keep it up that is.

All we know for sure is that Hadrian's Wall and the Great Wall of China no longer serve a useful purpose. How long before the Great Walls of America no longer serve a useful purpose?

The money being wasted on Fortress America could be better spent building high speed (maglev based) mass transit, and other infrastructure that does promote the general welfare.

I would imagine it would always be a temptation. Which is (one reason at least) why the United States has a system of checks and balances, along with power in the hands of the people.

National defense isn't a threat to individual civil liberty. The biggest threat to individual civil liberty is an ignorant, uninvolved, self-absorbed, lethargic citizenry.

Really? Well I don't know about a book but If you take a glance at Communist Russian, Cuba, China, or Korea, you would see that the social ideals held by those nations leads directly to dehumanization and fear which is experienced by those nations citizens.

A properly constructed wall will serve the purpose of effectively closing off the border. Doing this will greatly increase security, and Turn the flow of illegal immigration down to a trickle.

A secure border, and as a result a more secure nation, is imperative to promoting the general welfare.

How did we get a warfare-state to promote the general warfare if we have the checks and balances that we should only find in more authoritarian command economies?

I agree with your opinion about the common defense; however, we are not waging armed conflict for the common defense, but the common offense.

Would you agree that our current level public sector interference is not what the social contract our Founding Fathers contracted for?

How much will the Great Walls of America cost? I think we could do more by spending our money on a welfare-state that promotes the general welfare; instead of a warfare-state that promotes non-revenue producing warfare.

Well then, next time we write a Constitution, you be sure to include that. For now, we'll continue to at least pay lip service to Constitution we have.

Well, yes, the Model can run surplusses, invent faster-than-light travel so we can populate the stars, and even cure all disease so we all live to 200+ yrs old. However, the Real Life welfare state is a fast-track to societal decline. (Fast track in a historical perspective - not like we'll all be living in caves next Thursday.) And the pure libertarian Model works even better! But again would not be sustainable in the real world.


This is a non-sequitur. Checks and balances (should) exist in Any appreciably-sized organization to cut down on waste, corruption, and just plain mistakes.

That might be a proper comment if we were discussing Iraq, but the topic at hand is the invasion from Mexico.

Of course, but I don't see how this is relevant.

Except that a welfare-state Does Not promote the general welfare. Accepting for the moment your welfare/warfare dichotomy, a warfare state primarily produces soldiers, which reduce the useful workforce, weapons, which are products of only little-to-no social utility, and technology, which is sometimes of great social utility. A welfare state produces freeloaders, which reduce the useful workforce, and nothing more, which is of No social utility. A warfare state Can be pushed to produce more and more soldiers and weapons, which Can be bad for society (as in the USSR). A welfare state will Naturally produce more and more freeloaders, which Will be bad for society. The ideal is a proper balance between the two, but if forced to opt for one, with a goal of long-term societal general welfare, it's better to opt for the warfare state. (Assuming you're in a situation where you'll win rather than be annihilated, which describes the current US perfectly.)

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

[quote=Evil_inKarlate;812990]

This is a non-sequitur. Checks and balances (should) exist in Any appreciably-sized organization to cut down on waste, corruption, and just plain mistakes.

That might be a proper comment if we were discussing Iraq, but the topic at hand is the invasion from Mexico.

Of course, but I don't see how this is relevant.
QUOTE]

These were pretty much going to be my answers....

The constitution we do have states that a purpose of government is to promote the general welfare; not only the common defense. Perhaps we should get our legislators to, at least, pay lip service to providing for the common defense, instead of the common offense.

How did you reach your conclusion that a welfare-state is the road to the stone age? If anything, it is a warfare-state that can lead to a perfect Anarchy of Eden.

I agree with you that checks and balances; should, at least in theory, prevent any armed aggression (not to mention any artificial wars) that are not formally declared by the appropriate governmental body.

Labor migration does not constitute an invasion. Better public policy could be used to ameliorate the situation while still producing revenue.

I am still not sure how you reached your conclusion that the welfare-state socialism that enabled first world status to those countries that implemented it, would lead to third world status. If anything, the chaos form of anarchy introduced by a warfare-state, is more likely to produce third world conditions than any welfare-state economic model.

Actually, I think not spending near as much money on either one would do wonders for this country. If we turn around and spend the ridiculous amount on welfare, won't be just be subsidizing more poverty?

I think we should spend all of our money on ninjas.

Or we could put the turtles we have from zoos in sewers and create Ninja Turtles. That way, no money need be spent.