Originally posted by EladarWhat good is a government that does nothing while its people starve or live in squalor? If the government needs to be stronger to avert this, so be it.
Politicians have greatly increased their power when there has been economic crisis. Sounds pretty natural in the evolution of governments with too much power.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou see, that's the problem. People are the ones who make the difference, not the government. All the government does is suck from the people. True, private individuals can do much the same, but then we are only trading one private dictator for a public dictator. We will end up working for the man no matter what when you centralize money.
What good is a government that does nothing while its people starve or live in squalor? If the government needs to be stronger to avert this, so be it.
Originally posted by EladarAbsent government the type of modern economy we all cherish could not, and did not, exist.
You see, that's the problem. People are the ones who make the difference, not the government. All the government does is suck from the people. True, private individuals can do much the same, but then we are only trading one private dictator for a public dictator. We will end up working for the man no matter what when you centralize money.
In a democratic form, the people select the government and there are actually people in the government. I have no idea what this "dictator" you are raving about means.
Originally posted by rwingettIndeed, the one issue they were closest to being unanimous on (aside from enmity toward King George) was that religion should be kept out of the government. Something modern-day "conservatives" have either never learned or conveniently forgotten.
The biggest fallacy surrounding the "founding fathers" is the assumption that they spoke as a unified body. They did not. It's impossible to say that the "founding fathers" had a certain position on any issue. Collectively they held a variety of viewpoints. The Hamiltonian viewpoint and the Jeffersonian viewpoint, for example, were frequently at loggerheads.
Originally posted by EladarTut tut. Don't forget: your favorite pet, the military, is part of the government. You have just committed what is called a "gaffe" that pundits would be having a field day with for at least a week -- if people actually cared what you think.
You see, that's the problem. People are the ones who make the difference, not the government. All the government does is suck from the people.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo question. We have to have it. The question is, how much? When I lived in Camden County, New Jersey, we had the second highest millage rate in the country. Our tax rates were about four times higher there than they are now, in conservative Butler County, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was the entertainment director for Camden County. Her job was to book national acts in to the County's park venues, for concerts that were put on for "free". She made a little over $100K a year. And full pension, and on and on.
Absent government the type of modern economy we all cherish could not, and did not, exist.
In a democratic form, the people select the government and there are actually people in the government. I have no idea what this "dictator" you are raving about means.
Is it government's job to provide entertainment? Or should taxes be lower and let people find their own entertainment?
Originally posted by sasquatch672It's up to the locals. Some might say that "free" concerts bring in a lot of people who then spend money on local businesses and thus result in a net revenue gain for the locality.
No question. We have to have it. The question is, how much? When I lived in Camden County, New Jersey, we had the second highest millage rate in the country. Our tax rates were about four times higher there than they are now, in conservative Butler County, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was the entertainment director for Camden County. Her job was to b ...[text shortened]... rovide entertainment? Or should taxes be lower and let people find their own entertainment?
Originally posted by no1marauderWith respect to the original argument of the thread: Hindsight is always 20/20. I think it's important to note that the Fathers ensured a mechanism to modify our governing documents. The real problem is that we've had small-minded politicians of both stripes who have chosen to engage in petty bickering and self-enrichment over condu ting the nation's business.
It's up to the locals. Some might say that "free" concerts bring in a lot of people who then spend money on local businesses and thus result in a net revenue gain for the locality.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 209076
Originally posted by vivifyOf course they weren't infallible. They didn't even agree with each other on many key points.
The argument that "This is what the Founder Fathers wanted, thus keep it that way" is tiring. Yes, they're a good guide line to understanding our laws, and should be considered; but the beliefs of people who lived in a vastly different phase of human history, shouldn't govern the people of today.
http://sublimeburst.com/2012/02/the-founding-fathers-dont ...[text shortened]... ou who aren't aware of that America's patriarchs are far from the gold-standard of models.
Originally posted by vivifyI've never heard anyone argue the infallibility of the founding fathers. It is a straw-man argument. The Constitution in fact has been amended as it was intended.
The argument that "This is what the Founder Fathers wanted, thus keep it that way" is tiring. Yes, they're a good guide line to understanding our laws, and should be considered; but the beliefs of people who lived in a vastly different phase of human history, shouldn't govern the people of today.
http://sublimeburst.com/2012/02/the-founding-fathers-dont ...[text shortened]... ou who aren't aware of that America's patriarchs are far from the gold-standard of models.
Originally posted by vivifyPlease. At the time, slavery was the order of the day all over the planet. It was in fact England, and its colonies that first found slavery to be immoral. There was considerable argument at the Constitutional Convention over the matter, but it could not be resolved at that time.
Whodey, you realize you're defending people that allowed slavery and thought it was okay for women to not have the right to vote, right? Yes, there are some exceptions, which you will no doubt bring as a point; but as a whole, the Founders allowed things that weren't "moral". The Founders should be acknowledged; but it's a mistake for any societyto remain stagnant, and not progress.
The notion of making morality subject to standards of more than 2 centuries later is folly.
Originally posted by SoothfastThat was out of the federal government. It was known and acknowledged at the time that many States had State churches.
Indeed, the one issue they were closest to being unanimous on (aside from enmity toward King George) was that religion should be kept out of the government. Something modern-day "conservatives" have either never learned or conveniently forgotten.