The founding fathers were slave owners

Same with the food bank in this town, I mean this is (in general) an upper middle class suburban town, so there's not exactly a rush on the food bank, ours is often pretty short. Yet the town leans conservative so I'm willing to bet a lot of people in town would be willing to tell people food stamps are just encouraging poverty and charity can deal with it. *rolls eyes*

The US is already literally the most charitable nation on Earth:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm
We per capita give more to charity than any other country, and it's just nowhere near enough considering the poverty rates we have.

 

You may have been taught to accept that, and if so you were definitely taught wrong. It's a question much simpler than "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" In early times, when nation states had sovereign rulers, your view may have been acceptable. The U.S. was founded recognizing the individual as the source of sovereignty, and ownership of property has always been a result of what you are capable of protecting. Individual states that make up the U.S. are creations of the individuals who live within their borders, and each has a constitution defining the government and basic laws applicable within the state. The Federal government is a creation in which the states agree to give the responsibilities that could be best achieved only through unification. Read the Constitution as a foundational document, and recognize that it is not a living document except for the amendments that are applied through the consent of the people.

We live in a WORLD where we depend upon other people. If you would produce a product or service I might find useful, I would be glad to provide you some support. Are you pro-choice or pro-life?

A "read hearing"? Did you mean "red herring"? Earlier I had posted the primary freedom being taken away, not given up, is the freedom of choice. While it may sound good to the lesser enlightened when the government espouses that it is going to take from the rich in order to provide more for the poor, in reality what is illusively taken from the rich ends up being paid for by both the poor and the middle class. For government to achieve it's ends requires unrequited power. Essentially, the creation of a two class society, the ruling and the ruled. At some point in time Democracy has to be put aside as it becomes and encumbrance to the government. Someone has to have the power to overrule what government considers to be bad decisions of the majority.

 

I've already answered that question.

 

You do have the right to intercede, if you wish.

 

Could you restate that in English?

 

Actually the country has been going downhill for over a century.

 

-Again, nation states were formed in an effort to bring civilization, you can only "own" something in civilization and government, otherwise you only have possession of it till someone bigger than you or with more firepower comes along. Ask people in Somalia about owning things with no legal recourse to back it up.

-The constitution is only a foundation government in setting up how the federal government of the United States was to be formed and what rights are to be explicitly guaranteed. The fact remains what was relevant in 1790 is no longer what's relevant to government operations in 2010, this is why the supreme court uses and always has used the constitution as a guide to what the government can legally do in regards to modern problems and institutions, not your asinine idea that the constitution is supposed to allow the government only to do what it did in the 1790's.

Pro-choice, why?

-What freedoms of choice are being taken away, that's what you haven't defined. You just keep saying it.

The point is social safety nets are a good thing and there's no reason in a civilized and rich society people should go without decent food or health care coverage for the same reason we educate our kids and give grants and government funded loans to go to college.

 

In the end ownership has nothing to do with legality, but instead the ability to protect.

In opposition to your asinine interpretation of the Constitution, the Constitution is intended to be amended in accordance with the desires of the governed, not through reinterpretation of what is written within it.

If you can accept the elimination of a life that was not given a choice in it's elimination, and possibly one which may have become a valued member of society, why would you worry about those who have been given a chance and instead of becoming a resource to society instead allow themselves to be a burden upon it?

Any choices which can be made in life, with the exception of those which I willfully allow government to make for me.

There are numerous things that could be considered good, but government should not be the source of authority in making the decisions, it should be the people. Government should have no ability at all to redistribute wealth as it sees fit without the consent or willingness of those who are seen as the source of provision.
Yes, a rich society. $13,005,490,961,727.85 in debt, and that excludes the even greater liabilities yet to come due. Eventually it might come to light that wealth is not actually dollars, or any countries currency. Where do responsibilities fit in to your philosophy, other than for those who you feel have more than you think they deserve?

 

No, you're evading the point that ownership has everything to do with legality, ability to protect only gives you possession.

The constitution is vague for a reason, it doesn't set forth domestic policy, it just says what powers congress has. See, legally, for a government to work and laws to be passed, it needs a basis for its powers, especially in a federal system. The founding fathers didn't write the constitution to direct domestic policy 225 years later except for protecting certain rights guaranteed. As you recall, or you may not, there was severe opposition to the bill of rights at the time of its creation as people feared those would be the only rights we would have. The bill of rights doesn't list the only rights the government is supposed to protect and grant, it lists those deemed universally through time important enough that it had to be specifically said they can not be violated.

Apparently now the bill of rights is becoming useless in the fact the people who opposed it are now becoming right. People like you are arguing those are the only rights the government is here to protect and enforce. Sorry bub, the entire world minus 1/2 the United States now sees health care as a human right in 2010.

A fetus is not a life, simple as that. Anything that doesn't have reasonable chance of surviving outside of the womb yet does not qualify for human rights. Those same fetuses you want to protect also in the end would probably be born into a dirt poor family and lead a terrible life if you had your way and cut their liability to society parents off of aid and would continue the vicious cycle. How bout that logic. Make people have kids they can't afford or take care of, don't give them aid, kid leads terrible life, probably resorts to crime, has child himself they can't take care of, repeat endlessly.

Holy fuck, answer the god damn question or get out of the thread already. YOU don't get to decide what laws the government passes are, an elected legislator does. Often times, people don't agree with the laws being passed especially when its not their party in power. Now list a right you have lost, do it, now.

Government has the authority to do that directly from the people in the form of elected representation. Literally so considering the senate, normally equal in power to the house, is directly constitutionally bared from introducing revenue raising bills.

Well if the wealth isn't really currency you won't mind giving up a few dollars so some poor people can get some health care and have a more philosophical wealth, eh?

The national debt is also not as large as it seems. Yet it's a huge problem, but it's not an America is doomed next week problem. Our debt level is actually lower than numerous other first world nations and as a percent of the GDP is pretty normal. The US however since the dollar is de facto international currency and US trade keeps the global market flowing can finance its debt at a lower cost than even countries like Britain and Canada. $13 trillion is a huge number, and it cost $180 billion a year to pay the interest, but it can be easily managed if our politicians had some balls. The US federal government collected near $2 trillion in tax revenue in 2009, and 2009 overall was a bad year for tax revenue.

 

What's the old saying, "possession is nine tenths of the law"? If I came to your house could you provide me proof that everything within it was legally yours?

Obviously we differ on the definition of what "rights" are. While the Bill of Rights does not specify every right imaginable, it also does not even imply that government has the authority to grant any rights, but only to protect rights.

That's fine, but government does not have the ability to provide the services without the people who are capable of providing them.

At the same time there are many humans born who also appear to be incapable of surviving outside the womb. I'm neither pro-life or pro-choice, so it makes no difference to me except for the fact that many who probably should have been aborted are allowed to continue to exist based on their voting record, with no other value, and at a cost to the society in which all they do is exist.

At the moment, I think the right to decide if I want to have health insurance or not would be one. I have no problem being denied any service I can not afford, that should be my choice, and mine alone.

Government has assumed much greater power than it ever should have been allowed. Of course that's easy to do when government has the power to increase it's power simply by dividing the population in ways that bring home the bacon to everyone, and pile up debt that they will not have to repay.

I don't actually have any dollars. And I don't think it's going to be long before you and many others are going to find that those dollars, no matter how many you have are not going to be a sign of wealth.

Just how "not" large is it? Had a look at Greece, Spain, Italy, or some other first world nations lately? Not aware of what China is doing with their dollar investments, or bringing their Yuan into use trading with a number of countries in place of the dollar, not to mention proposing that the IMF reduce the dominance of the dollar in the global reserve currency? Currently SDR's are made up of dollars, euros, yen, and sterling, with the dollar 44%, euro 34%, and the yen and sterling each 11%. China wants to add the Yuan, and give each currency 20% share in the SDR.

On the positive side, it will be your debt not mine.

 

You can't compare Greece, Spain and Italy to the US. For one, Greece had a much larger debt in term of percent of the GDP. Greece is also part of the Euro which means the value of its currency can not fall and rise as freely as the US dollar. The US can finance its debt much cheaper than any of those countries, especially Greece. The dollar is international currency and the US is still an investors haven. Our long term tax, investment and demographic prospects are better than any of those countries, no one is worried about the US not being able to pay back its debt, just as it is with Britain who's deficit last year and national debt are both larger. Point being comparing us to Greece is a strawman argument, the situations are nothing alike.

The US dollar will also not lose its place as a reserve currency, China just likes to make fireworks. Their economic health is also dependent on the dollar since the US is not only their largest market, but largest investor, as well as largest stockpile by far of hard money. The percent of reserves in dollar form have fallen slightly over the past few years mainly to the Euro, but it's still higher than it was in the early and mid 90's. The current Greece problem will in fact just raise the dollar's percent again, as well as probably the pound. The US is still the home of the world's largest financial institutions, oil is still traded in dollars, the US is still the largest exporter of many foods, we are the largest export market for over 60 countries, and there's fresh doubt over the Euro. The Dollar isn't going to lose its status anytime soon.

I'll be back for the rest later.

 

So the U.S. is too big to fail? Let's sit back and watch.

 

What is a society for?

Is it for the benefit of the elites or for the majority?

Both a ‘free market’ system and a slave system are examples of societies that favour elites.

In my view neither system can be defended, on moral or economic grounds.

But while there are few who still think slavery is a good thing there are still many who think a ‘free market’ system is desirable, although I have noticed that few if any seems willing or able to defend if from criticism.

 

Indie

Already covered in the thread - Effort or Luck?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=400136&f=36

“The chances to achieve a good life are a lot greater for someone born into a rich family than someone born into poverty.

So the greatest possibility of gaining a good life is down pure and simply to luck.

The advantages of being born into a higher social class are many – greater educational possibilities, better social environment, better connections etc, the list goes on.

To a very large extent people are not in ‘heaven or hell’ because they made the effort or choose to be their but because of an accident of birth.

This means that a lot of human potential is being lost because of wealth based inequality that could realised by a better distribution of resources”

The thing is that advantage is not always chosen it’s not about making the wise right choice but been luck enough to be given that advantage.

For example it is much easier to be ‘self-reliant’ when born into money rather than into poverty.

And being born into a better off family means you’re more likely to get the type of education that gives you an advantage when it comes to self reliance.

*

If you want to reply please go to - Effort or Luck?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=400136&f=36

 

Why don't you tell me? You appear to feel you have all the answers. Put them out in the open.

 

Indie

What am I meant to tell you?

Once again you seem to be using a tactic to try and worm and windle your way out of answering fundamental questions about your ideas that you find difficult or impossible to answer.

You see I have ‘put them out in the open’ as you put it, you’re the one who hasn’t, and you’re the one that repeatedly refuses to answer questions.

Yes I think both a ‘free market’ system and a slave system are examples of societies that favour elites are you contending they are not? You don’t seem to be?

For example I’ve written at length, on why I think the free market system favours the elite, you don’t seem willing let alone able to contend those statements. Why is that?

 

I and many friends have prospered under what you call a free market system, and none of us could be considered elites. Do you propose to enslave those you call the elites? True freedom and rights can not be derived from a burden upon others. If all are not free then none can be. In your form of government, not all will find the rulers acceptable as it demands oppression of some in order to produce and provide what you wish to define as rights. I don't disagree that government has moved in that direction for over a century now, regardless of which party has been in office unlike many who claim their party is not responsible for what has happened.
Too much time is wasted on trying to place blame and too little on finding "real" solutions.

 

So, social programs and all, you and your friends have still had good lives. What's your problem with paying your fair share for what you have taken from the society?

What fucking burden? We just want you to pay your share for what you take from the society. If you get more of the pie, you should pay more.

What's your problem....A nice house, a boat, 2 really nice cars and all the other stuff you gave away. You certainly weren't "oppressed." Sounds like you had a very good life, so why do you begrudge others for wanting the same fruits for their labor?

.

 

Considering your list of what you own, including the 30' yacht, you're definitely in the top 5%

 

Yes, in spite of the social programs, many of my friends and I have been able to eke out pretty descent lives.
What is it you feel my friends and I have "taken" from society? Jobs?
Everything we have acquired has been at a cost, which we found acceptable.

You need to be more explicit in defining what it is you feel I have TAKEN from society. As for the pie as you call it, I do pay more, if I purchase two pieces of the pie I pay twice as much as someone who purchases one piece of the pie. I look at the pie as the goods and services, while you appear to look at the pie as being the currency that allows one to acquire the goods and services. In that form I would suggest that the onus is upon the individual to earn more of that particular pie. Try looking at currency as nothing more than the equivalent of ones labor, both physical and mental.

I don't begrudge others for wanting anything, I just begrudge it when they feel that I or others like me should bear the responsibility of providing it for them. I acquired what I did only because I did without other things in order to afford the things I wanted most. And in the end I gave up everything in order to live the remainder of my life as I wished. If I was as greedy or selfish as you imply, I would have spent time selling what I had instead of giving it away, but instead I placed my happiness above money.