Originally posted by normbenignGood grief. You set yourself a choice between the thoughts of a man who was president 200 years ago and a 'manifesto' written in 1848, which spawned an idology that all but became extinct 20 years ago. How utterly cramped and bizarrely limited the American libertarian political imagination is!
To properly understand the "general welfare clause" who better than Madison. I understand that the modern big government liberals and the neo-cons find the Constitution "limiting", and inconvenient.
I say either we start living by it, or toss it out altogether, and use the Communist Manifesto or some other document rather than paying lip service and totally disrepecting the document that made our nation exceptional.
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFIt is a movement called statism. That is, the focus is on empowering big brother more and more to deal with our problems in a centralized fashion. Of course, over the years statism has taken many forms such as communism, and socialism etc. Today, however, the movement is fueled by the "progressives". Granted, they don't fit the exact mold of communists or socialists, but the goals are much the same which is to empower Big Brother to "fix" what ails us. Of course, when you empower someone to "fix" your problems, you not only empower them, but you decrease your own voice in fixing these problems. The Framers, however, began with a bill of rights that basically handcuffed the statists by telling them that they could not prevent the citizens from owning property or bearing arms, or voting etc, etc. The citizens all had rights to these things, however, compare that to the statist bill of rights that demands Big Brother pay for health care, and a retirement, and an income to live on etc etc. Their approach is to empower the statists, not handcuff them. The statist view, however, is that to have a right to something, Big Brother must see to it that they obtain it which is a fundamental shift from what our Founders invisionsed. Of course, as you say, the Framers lived hundreds of years ago so what practical application can their views hold today? I say the cut off line should be about 50 years and then ones views and ideas should be flushed down the commode. IN fact, I think the Progressive ideology is much older, so its time to do some flushing!!!
Good grief. You set yourself a choice between the thoughts of a man who was president 200 years ago and a 'manifesto' written in 1848, which spawned an idology that all but became extinct 20 years ago. How utterly cramped and bizarrely limited the American libertarian political imagination is!
Originally posted by normbenignUltimately, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.
To properly understand the "general welfare clause" who better than Madison. I understand that the modern big government liberals and the neo-cons find the Constitution "limiting", and inconvenient.
I say either we start living by it, or toss it out altogether, and use the Communist Manifesto or some other document rather than paying lip service and totally disrepecting the document that made our nation exceptional.
Originally posted by whodeyAt the time that the founders lived, the bulk of the population were farmers living in small towns and tiny hamlets.
It is a movement called statism. That is, the focus is on empowering big brother more and more to deal with our problems in a centralized fashion. Of course, over the years statism has taken many forms such as communism, and socialism etc. Today, however, the movement is fueled by the "progressives". Granted, they don't fit the exact mold of communists or ...[text shortened]... fact, I think the Progressive ideology is much older, so its time to do some flushing!!!
People, by necessity, lived in rather tight communities where everyone knew everyone else. If your barn burned down, everyone else would help rebuild it. If you got sick, other people would help you get through it. But not to get too nostalgic, it was also a time when if you showed too much individuality, everyone would shun you. And if you dared to be black or female...(but that's a different topic).
Anyway -- we no longer live in these kinds of communities. Modern technology lets us travel quickly to distant places and we can converse with people from all around the world. Most people probably don't even know their next-door neighbor, let alone everyone else in the neighborhood. If someone in your neighborhood has their proverbial "barn" burn down, you probably wouldn't even know about it, let alone care -- and if your "barn" burned down, few or none would care about your situation.
This is why we have modern "statism". Something has to step in to replace what the old tight-knit community used to provide. Seems to me that the only way of truly eliminating the modern state would be to go back to 18th century living patterns and become like the Amish people. Get rid of cars, phones, computers, i-pods and even electricity. Go back to a time where the only people you knew were those within walking distance.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBut you don't have the option of obeying the Constitution "as what it is, according to how you see it" -- you have to obey the Constitution as the Supreme Court currently sees it.
No, the Constitution is what it is, however, the Supremes get to tell the world what they think it says or should say.
If you decide the Constitution doesn't require you to pay taxes and you get brought to court, the judge isn't going to be impressed with your particular interpretation of the Constitution. Unless of course, your argument is so compelling that it leads to a Supreme Court decision upholding your interpretation.
Originally posted by MelanerpesAnd why was that? You seem to imply that the reason people helped other people like this was because of a lack of technology. How absurd. The fact of the matter is, people helped other people like this and the family unit was strong because their survival depended upon it. Now all we have to do is cry to big brother to meet all our needs so the end result is a weaker familiy unit and as well as a weaker commuinty as a result.
[b]At the time that the founders lived, the bulk of the population were farmers living in small towns and tiny hamlets.
People, by necessity, lived in rather tight communities where everyone knew everyone else. If your barn burned down, everyone else would help rebuild it. If you got sick, other people would help you get through it.
Originally posted by MelanerpesSo your argument is that if the Founder had ipods and FAX's they would have all become statists? 🙄
[This is why we have modern "statism". Something has to step in to replace what the old tight-knit community used to provide. Seems to me that the only way of truly eliminating the modern state would be to go back to 18th century living patterns and become like the Amish people. Get rid of cars, phones, computers, i-pods and even electricity. Go back to a time where the only people you knew were those within walking distance.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyOne of the fundamental aspects of human nature is that we care most deeply about other people who we regularly see and interact with - and we tend to not be much concerned with those people we don't see.
And why was that? You seem to imply that the reason people helped other people like this was because of a lack of technology. How absurd. The fact of the matter is, people helped other people like this and the family unit was strong because their survival depended upon it. Now all we have to do is cry to big brother to meet all our needs so the end result is a weaker familiy unit and as well as a weaker commuinty as a result.
In the 18th century, people generally saw and interacted a great deal with everyone else in the neighborhood, and ONLY those people. So most everyone naturally cared about each other and looked out for each other.
Modern technology changed this. Modern travel and communications technology allows you to establish friendships with people all around the globe. And there are a lot of advantages to this. Imagine if your chess games were limited to people living in a small town.
But the downside is that no one needs to become friends with the neighbors. Everyone has their own personal circle of friends and associates often drawn from a wide area. The big advantage is that you can find many people who share your individual tastes. The disadvantage is that these people are usually so scattered hither and yon that if you are facing a personal crisis, they can't all suddenly rush to assist you like people in a small town would.
Originally posted by MelanerpesAn example of what I am talking about is Cass Sunstien, who is a former Harvard University law professor and current Obama administration official. He is a leading advocate of delinking liberty and property rights. Sunstien believes that economic value and private property are not natural occurences in human interaction but rather the outgrowth of government and law, therefore, as he sees it the government has the authority to better exploit and redistribute wealth
But you don't have the option of obeying the Constitution "as what it is, according to how you see it" -- you have to obey the Constitution as the Supreme Court currently sees it.
If you decide the Constitution doesn't require you to pay taxes and you get brought to court, the judge isn't going to be impressed with your particular interpretation of th ...[text shortened]... t is so compelling that it leads to a Supreme Court decision upholding your interpretation.
I think French philospher Frederic Bastiat summed it up best when he said,
"When the law has exceeded its proper function, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective; It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense."
Originally posted by whodeyit's kind of hard to have a big modern state if you're using 18th century technology. Consider the task of conducting a war -- the Battle of New Orleans is famous because it was fought AFTER the War of 1812 was OVER. But it took a couple of weeks to get the word out to all the troops.
So your argument is that if the Founder had ipods and FAX's they would have all become statists? 🙄
This is not to say that a Fax machine would've changed the way Madison and Co thought about things -- but who's to say that it wouldn't have.
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyIt seems like the vast majority of Americans would agree with Sunstein on this. (Okay. maybe not Wajoma). They agree that the government has a right to impose taxes and other levies, and to distribute the revenue according to how the law sees fit. And they agree that government has the right to regulate how you use your property. There is, of course, a great deal of disagreement about the size and scope of the taxes and the things the money ought to be spent on, or on the amount of regulation.
An example of what I am talking about is Cass Sunstien, who is a former Harvard University law professor and current Obama administration official. He is a leading advocate of delinking liberty and property rights. Sunstien believes that economic value and private property are not natural occurences in human interaction but rather the outgrowth of governmen lunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense."
Originally posted by whodeyBastiat does sum up the great dilemma that is involved every time a law is passed.
An example of what I am talking about is Cass Sunstien, who is a former Harvard University law professor and current Obama administration official. He is a leading advocate of delinking liberty and property rights. Sunstien believes that economic value and private property are not natural occurences in human interaction but rather the outgrowth of governmen ...[text shortened]... lunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense."
Laws are created to address some sort of injustice or problem facing society. But laws, by their nature, also interfere with someone's freedom in some way. So the question must always be asked -- does this law "exceed it's proper function"? Do the law's costs outweigh it's benefits?
In the case of murder, the law interferes with a person's freedom to kill someone else - but it protects everyone from being killed. In this case, the benefits of such a law clearly outweigh the costs. In the case of a law levying a 100% tax on everyone to pay for a diamond-encrusted addition to the White House, the costs would clearly outweigh the benefits.
But in many cases, the cost-benefit calculation is far from obvious - and the result is lengthy debate.
Originally posted by normbenignHere's Thomas Jefferson on whether one should live according to the dictates of an unchanging constitution:
I understand that the modern big government liberals and the neo-cons find the Constitution "limiting", and inconvenient. I say either we start living by it, or toss it out altogether.
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Originally posted by TeinosukeSeems we care more about what the "founders thought" than the founders themselves did.
Here's Thomas Jefferson on whether one should live according to the dictates of an unchanging constitution:
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amend ...[text shortened]... a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."