|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
 Posted - 03/11/2006 : 04:13:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
It wouldn't have to be changed, only correctly interpreted based on the intent of our founders.
Well, that is going to depend on not taking quotes out of context...quote:
"It has been urged and echoed, that the power `to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. " James Madison
In the preceeding paragraph of The Federalist No. 41, Madison says that "The power of levying and borrowing money..." has been "sufficiently vindicated and explained." In the quote you provide, he is talking about tax objectors "stooping to such a misconstruction" as he went about defending the government's ability to levy taxes.
Madison was noting that the power to tax was NOT an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare and he chided those who so argued.
Today, the power to tax is very much an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. This was NOT the intent of James Madison - or the Constitution. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/11/2006 04:14:06 |
 |
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 04:27:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
THoR wrote: quote:
That is not the point. The point is that I do not owe your child an education - YOU DO. To engage the collective to point a gun to my head and force me to pay for your child's education unwillingly is a criminal act.
Children are not property. In the eyes of the government, they are citizens with rights but who are not yet capable of being autonomous, therefore requiring legal guardians. That's why when a mother gives up her child, children's services take responsibility for placing the child in a new home. That's why children are removed from their parents' homes if parents abuse them. And that's why the government helps out economically and educationally when parents cannot afford to take care of the child's basic needs.
How do fit poor disabled, mentally ill, or sick and aged people into your system? Huge numbers of people do not have families or churches that have the funds to help them. The system you advocate would condemn scores of people to dying in the streets for the crime of being unlucky.
So it's fine with you if I put a gun to your head and steal your property so long as I show sufficient need?
The level of care given to the disabled hasn't changed that much since the welfare state began. There are still people dying in the streets. Such welfare is less than 3% of the Fed Budget. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 05:42:49 [Permalink]
|
The problem is not with the government. The problem is with us. We allow loathsome, partisan slimebuckets like the current administration and the majority, et al., in Congress to pass repressive legislation that benefits no one but themselves and the private interests they fellatiate on a daily basis. They have neither patriotism nor love of country. Like all but a scarce few rulers before them, they crave only wealth and/or power, and love only their distorted image of themselves. Thus it is and thus it will continue to be until we put a stop to it. They certainly won't reign themselves in.
Anyone who is eligible to vote and does not is worthy only of contempt, for it is they who enable the lying, scum-sucking weasels, and I apologize to the weasel family for the comparison. And one day, they, and we, might lose the right to vote in anything except those elections we read of, where the incumbents always get 100%. Was Election 2,000 the beginning, or a continuation? I don't know.....
Think about it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 06:42:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
The problem is not with the government. The problem is with us. We allow loathsome, partisan slimebuckets like the current administration and the majority, et al., in Congress to pass repressive legislation that benefits no one but themselves and the private interests they fellatiate on a daily basis. They have neither patriotism nor love of country. Like all but a scarce few rulers before them, they crave only wealth and/or power, and love only their distorted image of themselves. Thus it is and thus it will continue to be until we put a stop to it. They certainly won't reign themselves in.
Anyone who is eligible to vote and does not is worthy only of contempt, for it is they who enable the lying, scum-sucking weasels, and I apologize to the weasel family for the comparison. And one day, they, and we, might lose the right to vote in anything except those elections we read of, where the incumbents always get 100%. Was Election 2,000 the beginning, or a continuation? I don't know.....
Think about it.
APPLAUSE ! !(edit=I can't spell appalause) |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/11/2006 06:43:18 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 06:51:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Dude wrote: quote:
Why is there the assumption that libertarians would be in favor of not punishing a cheating corporation?
That's the political philosophy I've heard from a number of Libertarians I've known, who felt that private interests should more or less duke it out through competition in an idealistic free market. Corporations which cheated people would get a bad rap, would not get further business, and would die off, they claimed.
The Libertarians I've talked to were essentially capitalist anarchists. They believed that government was good for nothing, except, some conceded, for very basic police work and national defense. Others thought even these functions were better left to private companies, as well. Maybe your mileage varies, Dude, but that was the way the ones I've known have thought. I found it to be, in my opinion, a political stance that was impractical in the very extreme. I admit, I haven't spoken politics with more than a dozen or so Libertarians, so my small sample may be skewed.
Whether you, personally, are a Democrat, Republican or Socialist, I'm sure you don't agree with every plank in your party's political platform. I consider myself a Libertarian because it is the political philosophy which most closely resembles my personal set of values. I want a strong military. I support the demolition of the regimes of tyrants in other countries - I'd prefer to fight tyranny WHEREVER it may be found. I believe government is a necessary facet of society - but not at the level from which we currently suffer. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 09:13:12 [Permalink]
|
| THoR, thanks for making my point for me: you and I don't agree on even an interpretation of what Madison was saying, so therefore it's simply unthinkable that elected officials will agree upon what the Constitution means. At the very least, the Constitution must be made less ambiguous, don't you think? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 09:33:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
THoR, thanks for making my point for me: you and I don't agree on even an interpretation of what Madison was saying, so therefore it's simply unthinkable that elected officials will agree upon what the Constitution means.
No, I don't think we disagree on ANYTHING. 
quote:
At the very least, the Constitution must be made less ambiguous, don't you think?
Ok, yeah those guys lived in an age in which government which was barely beyond the concept of feudalism...and socialism wasn't yet even a twinkle in Groucho's eye. Actually socialism is probably the next logical step beyond feudalism - but we skipped a grade and went directly into a democratic republic (democracy worked for Greece and Rome thrived under a republic, so we tried a hybrid). Eventually the libertarian philosophy will probably supercede, but I don't have the patience to wait that long. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 11:33:07 [Permalink]
|
Half said:
quote:
That's the political philosophy I've heard from a number of Libertarians I've known, who felt that private interests should more or less duke it out through competition in an idealistic free market. Corporations which cheated people would get a bad rap, would not get further business, and would die off, they claimed.
The Libertarians I've talked to were essentially capitalist anarchists. They believed that government was good for nothing, except, some conceded, for very basic police work and national defense. Others thought even these functions were better left to private companies, as well. Maybe your mileage varies, Dude, but that was the way the ones I've known have thought. I found it to be, in my opinion, a political stance that was impractical in the very extreme. I admit, I haven't spoken politics with more than a dozen or so Libertarians, so my small sample may be skewed.
I think some of them say shit like that just to get liberals worked up.
Unrestrained capitalism is a destructive force, something I think even the most die-hard libertarian understands. Unless it is balanced by some force (the government) that protects people from the negatives and implements a system to redress the social and economic injustice inherent to pure capitalism, it is unsustainable and unethical.
I think the libertarian argument, for less interference and gov involvement in the market, is somewhat justified.
I'm 100% with the libertarian position when it comes to how fucked up the national budget is... Why would we build a $50M bridge in Alaska to an island that has 20 people on it? Why do we now give millions of dollars a year to W's "faith based initiative" programs? And so on and so on.... its disgusting.
But I'm just a political mutt. I take bits and pieces from several different political philosophies to make my own. I guess that makes me an independent....
But yeah, there are some libertarians out there who are fairly nutz, but there are also liberals out there who give money to PETA.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 15:25:27 [Permalink]
|
THoR scribed: quote:
No I'm lamenting the fact government denied me the opportunity to go before a jury of my peers, redress a grievance and be made whole. Even after they paid 'most' of what they owed, I am out $5k for a lawyer and the cap gains taxes I had to pay when I had to cash in securities to cover THEIR shortfall on the surgical bills until the appeal was concluded.
Bummer. Forget my ragging about your Libertarianism. You got screwed, period.
THoR also wrote: quote:
Whether you, personally, are a Democrat, Republican or Socialist, I'm sure you don't agree with every plank in your party's political platform. I consider myself a Libertarian because it is the political philosophy which most closely resembles my personal set of values. I want a strong military. I support the demolition of the regimes of tyrants in other countries - I'd prefer to fight tyranny WHEREVER it may be found. I believe government is a necessary facet of society - but not at the level from which we currently suffer.
Fair enough answer. Objection withdrawn.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/11/2006 15:28:47 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 16:00:07 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
I think some of them say shit like that just to get liberals worked up.
Unrestrained capitalism is a destructive force, something I think even the most die-hard libertarian understands. Unless it is balanced by some force (the government) that protects people from the negatives and implements a system to redress the social and economic injustice inherent to pure capitalism, it is unsustainable and unethical.
I think the libertarian argument, for less interference and gov involvement in the market, is somewhat justified.
I'm 100% with the libertarian position when it comes to how fucked up the national budget is... Why would we build a $50M bridge in Alaska to an island that has 20 people on it? Why do we now give millions of dollars a year to W's "faith based initiative" programs? And so on and so on.... its disgusting.
But I'm just a political mutt. I take bits and pieces from several different political philosophies to make my own. I guess that makes me an independent....
But yeah, there are some libertarians out there who are fairly nutz, but there are also liberals out there who give money to PETA.
Damn your eyes, Dude!: I can't find much to argue with there. "Political mutt" pretty much describes me, too, though I'm generally close to what's seen as Liberalism. Where I depart from some others holding to that philosophy is mainly in the area of security. I do feel the US has enemies out there who cannot always be negotiated into being friends.
For instance, I feel Iran must not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, though I am hoping intense diplomacy will prevent this. If diplomacy fails, a few well-placed cruise missiles would do the job, though we have years before this reaches an actual crisis, and the political climate there may very well change in the interim. I certainly don't believe we can or should invade Iran. (Which is not the same as saying our idiot President won't try.)
Osama bin Laden and his top henchmen must be captured or killed. Al Qaeda must be penetrated, rolled up and destroyed, root and branch. This covert game of Wack-a-Mole on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border must end in success.
Electronic surveillance of Americans and others at home, when required for national security, should be done under court warrants, in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Congressional oversight alone (which is now being promoted) won't cut it.
If I have problems on the above issues with others calling themselves "Liberals," so be it.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/11/2006 17:21:32 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 17:23:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
The problem is not with the government. The problem is with us. We allow loathsome, partisan slimebuckets like the current administration and the majority, et al., in Congress to pass repressive legislation that benefits no one but themselves and the private interests they fellatiate on a daily basis. They have neither patriotism nor love of country. Like all but a scarce few rulers before them, they crave only wealth and/or power, and love only their distorted image of themselves. Thus it is and thus it will continue to be until we put a stop to it. They certainly won't reign themselves in.
Anyone who is eligible to vote and does not is worthy only of contempt, for it is they who enable the lying, scum-sucking weasels, and I apologize to the weasel family for the comparison. And one day, they, and we, might lose the right to vote in anything except those elections we read of, where the incumbents always get 100%. Was Election 2,000 the beginning, or a continuation? I don't know.....
Think about it.
You sound so angry Filthy, I think you are smarter than that. This (post) sounds like so many others who just want to 'jump on the band wagon' and complain just because it's popular to be against 'big business'.
It is right to criticizes people who don't vote and probably most politicians, haha. But to be against 'private interests' from benefiting is not right. Who provides the jobs? Companies have to make a profit to survive and keep employing people. Don't most people like an incentive. Business takes the risks so why shouldn't they get a bigger %age. Employees get paid and benefits too. (people have come to expect them but it's not a right really. A days pay for a days work. There wasn't anything about health insurance, and all the other things people get now days from their employer.)
Politicians are not always and only dealing with business, they give money for various other things too. What about studies to find out seemingly unnecessary information. Things that could be put on hold if there's not enough money. What about government agencies that don't do a proper job in the 1st place. I'd like to know why every week my mail and that of my neighbors is never delivered correctly. There's a lot of inefficiency and waste to go around.
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 18:05:07 [Permalink]
|
Snake, the main reasons that Filthy is angry is that he reads history for perspective, and follows current events in the media. I've noted that you've repeatedly expressed profound disinterest in current events and in history. But such interests are what gives Filthy the knowledge and justification to make his pithy statements.
The way I see it, that gives Filthy cause for anger at how the Bush League is mismanaging our country and selling it out to the highest corporate bidders. Of course, businesses are needed. But they should not be given priority at the expense of the general public good. This Administration has stretched and distorted traditional civic values completely out of shape, to the point of corruption at the public's expense.
If you'd only follow the news, and study it in the perspective of history, I think you might be angry, too.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/11/2006 18:25:02 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 01:20:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I've noted that you've repeatedly expressed profound disinterest in current events and in history.
If you'd only follow the news, and study it in the perspective of history, I think you might be angry, too.
When have I said I was disinterested? Repeatedly and profound, are such a strong words. Let's say a couple of times, huh? I don't read newspapers, I do follow happenings that are necessary for me to know in my community and other areas of my life. Newspapers don't give the full story. I don't trust what I read or hear on TV or radio. In any one media, that is. I find out from various places. I said I don't care about the 'news' that takes up 1/2 the papers and TV time when they talk about sports, movies starts and other flighty nonsense.
I know what's happening from my own perspective. Just as it seems so many others do from theirs. I could be wrong but when people suggest places to get information they choose websites and other biased reference sources. That is what I was questioning, the 'Jumping on the Bandwagon' mentality. I'm wondering if anyone is looking at both and all sides of the situation. It seems to me that so many people, like the callers to radio shows only repete what they've heard without trying to compromise or get all the information on a subject. It seems to me that with everyone sounding so angry no one is really listening to what can be done to fix things. They just want to be in opposition... Just because! At some point there has to be a settlement that's as fair as it can be to both sides. It seems to me if people would stop taking sides they could try to understand what is being said.
Is anyone all right or all wrong?
Even Hitler liked art.
As soon as someone mentions democrat or republican the 'other side' digs their heels in and wants to belittle the other instead of really debating. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 05:42:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You sound so angry Filthy, I think you are smarter than that. This (post) sounds like so many others who just want to 'jump on the band wagon' and complain just because it's popular to be against 'big business'.
It is right to criticizes people who don't vote and probably most politicians, haha. But to be against 'private interests' from benefiting is not right. Who provides the jobs? Companies have to make a profit to survive and keep employing people. Don't most people like an incentive. Business takes the risks so why shouldn't they get a bigger %age. Employees get paid and benefits too. (people have come to expect them but it's not a right really. A days pay for a days work. There wasn't anything about health insurance, and all the other things people get now days from their employer.)
Politicians are not always and only dealing with business, they give money for various other things too. What about studies to find out seemingly unnecessary information. Things that could be put on hold if there's not enough money. What about government agencies that don't do a proper job in the 1st place. I'd like to know why every week my mail and that of my neighbors is never delivered correctly. There's a lot of inefficiency and waste to go around.
Where exactly, and when exactly did I state that business should not be allowed profit?
I have neither said nor implied such any such thing. I am all for business turning profit -- I feel that it is esential that business turn a profit, and a handsome one, however that profit should not be synonymous with usury. That is the reason that there are monopoly laws, or at least there used to be monopoly laws -- I dunno what the status of that is now.
Corporations should not be able to influence the government beyond fair use and trade. Have you noticed the gargantuan profits big oil has raked in since the current Lying Son-Of-A-Bitch in Chief took office? How much did you pay to fill your gas tank the last time...? And you did not feel just a little, for lack of a better term: fucked over?
" The problem is not with the government. The problem is with us. We allow loathsome, partisan slimebuckets like the current administration and the majority, et al., in Congress to pass repressive legislation that benefits no one but themselves and the private interests they fellatiate on a daily basis. They have neither patriotism nor love of country. Like all but a scarce few rulers before them, they crave only wealth and/or power, and love only their distorted image of themselves. Thus it is and thus it will continue to be until we put a stop to it. They certainly won't rein themselves in."
Do you find security in the obscene Patriot Act, that has yet to convict a single terrorist? Do you take comfort in knowing that American citizens have been incarcerated indefinatly without access to legal counsel? Do you applaud the suspension of Habeas Corpus? Do you take pride in the Gitmo Gulag?
"Anyone who is eligible to vote and does not is worthy only of contempt, for it is they who enable the lying, scum-sucking weasels, and I apologize to the weasel family for the comparison. And one day, they, and we, might lose the right to vote in anything except those elections we read of, where the incumbents always get 100%. Was Election 2,000 the beginning, or a continuation? I don't know.....
Think about it."
You bet your sweet ass I'm angry!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/13/2006 05:46:59 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 01:38:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Where exactly, and when exactly did I state that business should not be allowed profit?
I have neither said nor implied such any such thing.
I don't think you did, why do you ask?
quote:
How much did you pay to fill your gas tank the last time...?
I don't know I don't pay for it and don't use it much. (my partner does complain when he buys it but he's American now). I have to be very honest and say I wish gas was 50 cents again but I don't think that's going to happen. Just like lettus is not 25 cents now. That's the reason I don't buy it anymore, since for over 20 years. I do drive sometimes but I conserve gas. Whatever I would spend on gas I'd pass the cost on to my customers. I blame all those moron Americans for buying those big 'truck like' cars with 4 wheel drive and only dirve in the city with only one person, the driver, inside. And she's always on the phone holding up traffic. Those damn things clog up the streets. Supply and demand. If people don't want to pay so much, get a smaller car, ride a bike, demand other forms of transportation. There are things one can do besides complain about the price of gas.
I used to ride my bike to work and no it wasn't the kind with a motor, that was back when gas was being rationed. But I'd been riding long before that anyway. Gas has been less expensive for a long time in the USA than in many other parts of the world. Americans are selfish, they waste too much and expect too much. Perhaps if they looked at their life styles and see how to change that, they'd have less to complain about. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
