Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare" - Page 10 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Pogo · #**136** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Socialism and limited government are mutually exclusive.

Or maybe it's that your arguments are unconvincing. Do they or don't they withstand a test of reason?

Norrin Radd · #**137** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

Or maybe it's that your arguments are unconvincing. Do they or don't they withstand a test of reason?

Or maybe I am outnumbered 10 to 1 here by socialists.

danielpalos · #**138** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Socialism and limited government are mutually exclusive.

I disagree with this premise. Socialism and limited government are not mutually exclusive. That misunderstanding was due to the simplification of official US propaganda, last millennium. It is an obsolete political-science definition that should be updated for modern times and global economics.

Our US Constitution is very object oriented. It could apply to a Union of States at the planetary level, while still being applicable at the local State level.

Socialism and more developed economies are synonymous. In my view, more developed economies require forms of socialism in order to exist. Truer forms of Capitalism are now found usually in more anarchic, third world political-economies.

danielpalos · #**139** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Why is the drug war still being prosecuted if there is no Constitutional authority for it, since the repeal of the prohibition amendment?

Providing for the general Welfare of the United States could involve the elimination of official poverty in our republic. It would also deny and disparage our elected representatives to government those monies, and potentially preclude their use for extra-Constitutional activities or boondoggles.

It would be analogous to having state only militias that can deny and disparage manpower to the general government of the Union, in times of police actions that do not merit a formal declaration of war.

fishjoel · #**140** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Truer forms of Capitalism are now found usually in more anarchic, third world political-economies.

Warlords and dictators are not forms of capitalism. It would be more accurate to say that Capitalism with shades of socialism is needed for modern societies, imo. I fully admit there are some social programs that are needed but those should be relegated to protecting our life/liberty as much as possible (eg police/military/courts).

TSGracchus · #**141** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Warlords and dictators are not forms of capitalism.

No, those are government types, not economic systems. But capitalism is an industrial economy organized so as to maximize concentration of capital, and it's easier to do that under a dictatorship than a democracy. Democracy doesn't lend itself to capitalism because most people, not being owners of capital, resent it. The only way it can be preserved is through corruption of democracy through corporate influence on the government. Democracy and socialism actually go together better.

In fact, on another thread, I posited that you can't really have one without the other. The U.S. shows that democracy, in order to work, needs a socialist economy, because with a capitalist economy you have too much concentration of wealth and too much influence of wealth on politics, so that the popular will that's supposed to be represented is blocked. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, showed that socialism, in order to work, needs a democratic government, because under a dictatorship or oligarchy those who hold political power use it to gain economic privilege, generating a new class system.

TSGracchus · #**142** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Socialism and limited government are mutually exclusive.

I'm having a problem with that phrase "limited government." You're using it as a code. Interpreted literally, we both value limited government; I certainly don't want a government that's UNlimited, with no restraints or safeguards on it! But what you mean is a minimal government, one similar to what the U.S. had from the 1800 election until the Civil War. Is that term, "minimal government," acceptable? I think it's a clearer statement of your preference than "limited government," which is misleading.

Socialism and minimal government are indeed mutually exclusive. So are capitalism and minimal government. That's because an industrial economy and minimal government are mutually exclusive, and socialism and capitalism are both industrial economic forms. In order to have minimal government again, we'd have to return to the material circumstances that prevailed around the presidency of Andrew Jackson. To do that, we'd have to kill off around two-thirds of the population, disperse the rest to the countryside leaving cities much smaller, break up big agribusiness and hand out land to small farmers, and outlaw all technology invented after the year 1800. So long as we didn't brink back slavery for a divisive issue leading to another civil war, and so long as the rest of the world was willing to leave us alone, we could then have a government organized around Jeffersonian principles indefinitely.

Under present material circumstances, though, it can't be done.

danielpalos · #**143** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Warlords and dictators are not forms of capitalism. It would be more accurate to say that Capitalism with shades of socialism is needed for modern societies, imo. I fully admit there are some social programs that are needed but those should be relegated to protecting our life/liberty as much as possible (eg police/military/courts).

Truer forms of Anarcho-Capitalism are found wherever there is less socialism. Warlords and dictators usually aren't socialist enough to have a central bank or Hoover Dam.

Pogo · #**144** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Or maybe I am outnumbered 10 to 1 here by socialists.

For starters, why don't you stop putting labels on people? All it does is show that you're unwilling or incapable of addressing their arguments.

Norrin Radd · #**145** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

For starters, why don't you stop putting labels on people? All it does is show that you're unwilling or incapable of addressing their arguments.

I have been addressing arguments ofr several pages now. What have you addressed?

Either you believe in individual liberty and limited government, or you don't.

Either you believe in the ideals of Jefferson and Madison, or you believe in the ideals of Hamilton.

Personally, Jefferson had it right, but some people will never agree because they don't actually believe in individual liberty.

No one has a right to food, or health care, or housing. You have a right to earn your own food, or housing, or health care, but you do not have a right to have it given to you. This is where this country went down the wrong path.

I have given information from Jefferson, Madison and Davey Crockett. All 3 understood that welfare is unconstitutional.

Here is another quote from John Adams........

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams

a FEW MORE, IN CASE ANYONE MISSED THEM.........

– With respect to the two words ‘ general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

– I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

– Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. – James Madison

– We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. — Congressman Davy Crockett

– To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. — Thomas Jefferson

THIS IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW ON CHARITY. It is easy to understand and it fits with the principles this country was founded upon. To take money from those who work and give it to those who will not work, goes against these principles and anyone who supports welfare quite simply does not believe in individual liberty.

Period.

Pogo · #**146** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

I have been addressing arguments ofr several pages now. What have you addressed?

Either you believe in individual liberty and limited government, or you don't.

Either you believe in the ideals of Jefferson and Madison, or you believe in the ideals of Hamilton.

Personally, Jefferson had it right, but some people will never agree because they don't actually believe in individual liberty.

No one has a right to food, or health care, or housing. You have a right to earn your own food, or housing, or health care, but you do not have a right to have it given to you. This is where this country went down the wrong path.

I have given information from Jefferson, Madison and Davey Crockett. All 3 understood that welfare is unconstitutional.

Here is another quote from John Adams........

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams

a FEW MORE, IN CASE ANYONE MISSED THEM.........

– With respect to the two words ‘ general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

– I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

– Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. – James Madison

– We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. — Congressman Davy Crockett

– To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. — Thomas Jefferson

– With respect to the two words ‘ general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

THIS IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW ON CHARITY. It is easy to understand and it fits with the principles this country was founded upon. To take money from those who work and give it to those who will not work, goes against these principles and anyone who supports welfare quite simply does not believe in individual liberty.

Period.

Nevertheless, putting labels on people is in diametrical opposition to the employment of sound reasoning.

Norrin Radd · #**147** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

Nevertheless, putting labels on people is in diametrical opposition to the employment of sound reasoning.

If you are a socialist, then you are a socialist. What's the big deal?

Do you support wealth distribution? Do you support welfare and UHC? Do you think people have a right to food and shelter? Do you support the graduated income tax? Do you support the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain?

If you answered yes to all of those questions, then you are a socialist.

Pogo · #**148** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

If you are a socialist, then you are a socialist. What's the big deal?

Do you support wealth distribution? Do you support welfare and UHC? Do you think people have a right to food and shelter? Do you support the graduated income tax? Do you support the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain?

If you answered yes to all of those questions, then you are a socialist.

Do you support allowing the well-to-do to screw those who aren't?

If you're answer is yes then you are *not* overly concerned with the freedom and liberty of all, but rather, of the few, meaning that you favor socialism so long as it serves the interests of the the elites.

And you thought you weren't a socialist, eh?

htperr6565 · #**149** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Do you support the graduated income tax?

i never thought of teddy roosevelt as a socialist, but cool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Do you support the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain?

If you answered yes to all of those questions, then you are a socialist.

I didn't know the founders were socialists as well.

congratulations!!! you are the 1000 member of this forum to make an absolutely ignorant comment on what 'socialism really is.'

TSGracchus · #**150** (**permalink**) 07-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

THIS IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW ON CHARITY.

No, it's Jefferson's, Madison's, and Crockett's views. None of whom own the Constitution. The Constitution, actually, takes no view on charity at all.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode