Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Danoff]

Swift the first thing you must recognise is there are a group of people who through no fault of their own can not work and support themselves . If you are saying , "thats tough let nature follow its course " you are among a small minority . Most people do not want to live in a society that treats its weakest members in such a manner .

If most people want to live in a society that treats its weakest members well - then there should be no problem with private charity providing for the weakest members you refer to. Again, that is the only moral way.

The thing is our society has evolved through the democratic proccess to this level of "socialism " as you say it is not being forced on you , you choose to still live here. If you are so stuck on the principle you hold dear and hold it in more esteem than the democratic proccess than you either must learn to accept it or work to change it or leave for better pastures . if you disagree with the majority then you either work within the system to reform or change it or you leave .

Tyranny of the majority. If everyone voted to kill jews... blah blah you get the point.

 

[Danoff]

There's a HUGE difference to me between welfare and unemployment. Unemployment I feel has a place especially in todays world where companies are buying and selling each other all the time. YOu can easily loose your job through NO fault of your own.

True... but does that entitle you to other people's money? You should account for that and save - or you'll need to appeal to the charity of others.

As far as helping the handicapped. That's a given. Obviously mentally challenged people have a severe disadvantage and need help. And I think that almost nobody would have a problem with that train of thought.

I wouldn't call it a "given", but the state will end up in custody of many such people eventually if you simply turn them lose to fend for themselves - so it probably has to happen anyway.

 

[Swift]

True... but does that entitle you to other people's money? You should account for that and save - or you'll need to appeal to the charity of others.

I see where you're coming from. But at least you can say that you paid into it. I know it's not the "same" money. But you did put into it so you should be able to get out. With welfare, that's not the case.

 

[Danoff]

I see where you're coming from. But at least you can say that you paid into it. I know it's not the "same" money. But you did put into it so you should be able to get out. With welfare, that's not the case.

It's all about chosen vs. forced. The fact that you have no choice but to buy this "insurance" which is for YOU is part of what bothers me. If unemployment insurance were voluntary I'd have no beef with it.

 

[ledhed]

Good grief man. You make is sound like I hate people and wouldn't give a starving person a cup of water.

I also love this country very much. I simply don't like some of the ways that things are done. It's possible to be a patriot and still disagree with some stuff the gov't does right?


There's a HUGE difference to me between welfare and unemployment. Unemployment I feel has a place especially in todays world where companies are buying and selling each other all the time. YOu can easily loose your job through NO fault of your own.

As far as helping the handicapped. That's a given. Obviously mentally challenged people have a severe disadvantage and need help. And I think that almost nobody would have a problem with that train of thought.

I understand that there is and always will be people in need. But whenever you have a system like this there will be people that abuse it.

In no way swift did I imply that you hate people etc. First of all I think I know better. I did attempt to explain how welfare works and how it benifits society as a whole . Having me being the ombundsman for welfare is like having attilla the Hun in charge of a peace treaty . I accept the democratic society that I choose to live in . I work for change within the system and support " workfare" not welfare for all those who are able to work . The bill of rights is my protection from tyranny of the majority . Any other tyranny that is imposed is a tyranny I accepted when I chose to live in this society . Just like those who choose to live here must do when my " tyranny ' gets its turn . Its called Republicans vs. Democrats and they seem to relish taking turns at imposing their tyranny on us and we love it !
Except when the liberals win of course .

 

[Danoff]

Its called Republicans vs. Democrats and they seem to relish taking turns at imposing their tyranny on us and we love it !
Except when the liberals win of course .

My earlier comment about the tyranny of the majority was that the majority cannot be allowed to impose immoral rule - regardless of how much support it has.

 

[Swift]

In no way swift did I imply that you hate people etc. First of all I think I know better. I did attempt to explain how welfare works and how it benifits society as a whole . Having me being the ombundsman for welfare is like having attilla the Hun in charge of a peace treaty . I accept the democratic society that I choose to live in . I work for change within the system and support " workfare" not welfare for all those who are able to work . The bill of rights is my protection from tyranny of the majority . Any other tyranny that is imposed is a tyranny I accepted when I chose to live in this society . Just like those who choose to live here must do when my " tyranny ' gets its turn . Its called Republicans vs. Democrats and they seem to relish taking turns at imposing their tyranny on us and we love it !
Except when the liberals win of course .

Ok, cool. Sorry to make a false implication

Yeah, I can "deal" with workfare. But it's a system that will cost as much to monitor as it does to support. But, I guess we're stuck.

Also, I find political parties self defeating. If we're all Americans, why do we have to have political parties? I hate it when one party attacks another just because they're trying to slam them for the next election. Very ugly stuff. That's why I'm very much against the liberal world view and mindset.

 

[ledhed]

My earlier comment about the tyranny of the majority was that the majority cannot be allowed to impose immoral rule - regardless of how much support it has.

ahhh But all individuals do not have the same views as to what is moral . That is why they have to try to set up a form of government that will protect basic rights and allow dissent and change . No one will satify everyones sense of what is moral .

 

[Danoff]

ahhh But all individuals do not have the same views as to what is moral . That is why they have to try to set up a form of government that will protect basic rights and allow dissent and change . No one will satify everyones sense of what is moral .

One must adhere to an objective exterior set of morality. What is or is not moral is not up for vote. The majority will decide time and again to do imoral things to the minority for their own benefit (see slavery, redistribution of wealth, ethnic cleansing etc). This is why it is important that we strive to understand an objective code for morality and frame the limitations of our government around that objective code. This is the idea behind the bill of rights (even if it isn't the realization of that idea).

So when did it become moral in your mind to take someone's belongings against their will and give it to someone else of your (or an elected representative's) choosing?

 

[ledhed]

One must adhere to an objective exterior set of morality. What is or is not moral is not up for vote. The majority will decide time and again to do imoral things to the minority for their own benefit (see slavery, redistribution of wealth, ethnic cleansing etc). This is why it is important that we strive to understand an objective code for morality and frame the limitations of our government around that objective code. This is the idea behind the bill of rights (even if it isn't the realization of that idea).

So when did it become moral in your mind to take someone's belongings against their will and give it to someone else of your (or an elected representative's) choosing?

When we aggree to any form of taxation . By accepting to live in this society you aggree to accept that at time s you will be forced against your will to pay for things you do not like. That is the compromise of living in a democracy .

 

[Danoff]

When we aggree to any form of taxation . By accepting to live in this society you aggree to accept that at time s you will be forced against your will to pay for things you do not like. That is the compromise of living in a democracy .

So you're not seeing the moral difference between having to fund the military and having to fund others?

 

[ledhed]

Danoff there is more than just the military to fund. That is all up to discussion and action by the voting public. The morality itself is up to discussion. If its not covered under the bill of rights. What is morality ? Is it not sujective to each individual ? Is not morality defined collectively in a democracy ? killing is not moral but we make it moral by the majority establishing the death penalty . We make waging war moral when we declare war or authorise " use of force " . We can make same sex marriage "moral" if we choose . or we could just choose to be immoral . And pay our taxes .

 

[Danoff]

Danoff there is more than just the military to fund. That is all up to discussion and action by the voting public.

I am aware that there is more than just the military to fund - but some things cannot be up to the voting public. This is the whole point of the bill of rights - to prevent the majority from infringing the rights of the minorty. Would we consider it moral to castrate black people in an effort to eliminate them from our population? What if the majority (white people) voted for it? Would it be right then? It would certainly be considered unconstitutional, but in a democracy - government programs are up to the voting public right? So not only is it ok to castrate all black males, but it's ok to make those who are vehemently against that (white or black) to pay for it.

That is the tyranny of the majority. That kind of immoral behavior on the part of the majority is exactly the reason we have to have controls on what the majority is allowed to do (via government).

What is morality ? Is it not sujective to each individual ?

Through reason man can achieve an objective standard for morality that is not subjective to the individual. The founding fathers of America attempted to do just that when they framed our current government system. Without an objective morality - one is left with two choices.

1) One cannot impose his morality on anyone else since morality is subjective and nobody knows which one is right. This results in us having to say "yea you're a murderer and a pedophile, but since you consider that moral I guess you're off the hook."

or

2) The majority is left to decide what is moral. The result of this is situations like I described above where the majority will (<- absolutely will) decide to do very immoral things to the minority for their own benefit or amusement.

Neither of these works. The founding fathers of our government KNEW this which is why they wrote the consitution and bill of rights.

Is not morality defined collectively in a democracy ? killing is not moral but we make it moral by the majority establishing the death penalty.

Let's not confuse killing with justice (again defined objectively).

We make waging war moral when we declare war or authorise " use of force " .

Again, Justice only. If it is not just to go to war - then it is an immoral decision.

We can make same sex marriage "moral" if we choose . or we could just choose to be immoral . And pay our taxes .

Same sex marriage is not a matter of morality, it's a matter of freedom. It doesn't infringe your morality at all for others to follow their own behvaior - as long as they don't violate your rights (which do not include things like others behaving a certain way because that conflicts with their rights). Until same sex marriage is FORCED on heterosexual couples or is FUNDED by the public at large - it is not an issue of morality.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

So, you're fundamentally saying that there is no such thing as private property?

Not quite. I'm saying that there should be limitations. Without ownership rights, what's to stop anyone from stealing? At the same time, with no limitations, what's to stop Bill Gates and Warren Buffett from combining resources and buying the entire Western and MidWest portion of the United States?

Since I can only buy property from a private owner, who must have bought it from a private owner, ad infinitum back to the first owner who must have stolen it from the greater society of mankind by claiming it as his own?

Exactly. If theft is so wrong when being applied to the redistribution of wealth, why is theft OK when applied to property?

What about businesses? They are subject to the same rights and responsibilities as individuals. They may own property. They may not interfere with the negative rights of other businesses, or individuals: in other words, they may not steal (either by force or fraud), and purposely or knowingly injure anyone. But that doesn't mean they are restricted from aggressive business tactics that might interfere with someone's (or something's) perceived entitlement.

Sounds like Wall Street to me.

What if I come around after hours to look at your books? Technically I'm not stealing your ideas, nor did I burn the factory down. But a little "inside information" to help me decide whether or not I should buy long or sell short... does that fall under "agreessive business tactics that shouldn't be restricted regardless of someone's (or something's) perceived entitlement"?

You're missing the point. The bank can't preemptively consider me property, even if I owe them money. Only I can consider myself property, though I can assign temporary ownership of those rights to another entity if I willingly do so.

Whether it's my decision or not, I personally would not feel comfortable in a society where people are aloud to sign their lives away via an indentureship.

In other words, like an indentureship. Say I get into debt I cannot pay. I indenture myself to the creditor and I do work assigned by them for an agreed-upon length of time until the debt is satisfied. Then my indentureship is over and I regain my full rights.

Or, if I decline, I go to jail, and my creditor writes off the bad debt or claims it against his bad-debt insurance.

Either way, you're not free. You're either sitting in jail, or working for no pay. That's not conducive to freedom.

As an aside, my great-great-great-great-grandfather, Benjamin Franklin Williams, came over from England on a 7-year indenture in about 1835. I have his indenture paper mounted in a frame.

Ummm... *speechless* So you're ancestors are no stranger to slavery then...

At any rate, why would you want to go back to a time like that if that's the case?!

It's not fair to arbitrarily take my property to satisfy your demands.

It goes both ways, though. Let's say social security is eliminated. Defense would [likely] be Fed's biggest tax expenditure. Let's say you want to go war -- and I don't. Is it fair to arbitrarily take my property to satisfy your demands? If not, then how would wars be paid for? Private donations?

Just like it's not fair to arbitrarily take your property to satisfy my demands.

I didn't read ahead... I addresed this part above.

If it's not good enough for you, then become one of the active charity-givers who donates a large portion of your income to help the needy.

There's only so much I can give. Resources are scarce.

But you don't want to do that... you want everybody to be forced to meet your criteria.

Precisely (to the latter). And that's not true (to the former).

So, there you go... assuming that the government can successfully and fairly set arbitrary levels. My local government can't even successfully approve a bypass that everybody agrees desperately needs to be built, and you think that they can fairly set a standard of living and an entitlement package?

Yes, but that's just my opinion. However, if the bypass was created through private funds and the owner decides that the bypass should be dedicated to pedestrians and cyclists, then what? You (plural, not just "you") still won't get what you wanted anyway!

Although I do applaud you for thinking at a regional level rather than a federal one, I still fundamentally disagree that such a thing can be done.

So you see... I'm not the "big-government statist power monger" that you thought I was.

And even if it could be, it's still philosophically unfair, for all the reasons I've outlined many times.

Perhaps.

Peikoff makes some good points from time to time, but overall Kelley is smarter and more able to apply the philosophy.

And more flexible and less critical of those outside of the Objectivist sphere.

Except for those far-right anti-drug and anti-gay-marriage tendencies...

Exactly!

More or less. Both philosophies see free-market capitalism as the ideal. But lazy Libertarians don't expect to get rich, while hard-core Objectivists don't expect anyone to be lazy.

That makes sense.

Then why did you waste hundreds of words telling me that I thought all taxes must be theft?

I misunderstood.

And, yes, there is something wrong with Social Security - it's compulsory.

So are seat belt laws. It's a funny thing, though. Most people who wear them never stop to think... "why am I wearing this thing in the first place?" Until they get into a car accident and are kept firmly into their seat while their unbelted passenger is ejected from the car. I suspect it's the same thing with social security. Most people who pay into it never stop to think... "why am I paying for this thing in the first place?" Until they lose their job because the company decided to downsize in order to meet analyst's 3rd quarter estimates.

So, just because someone has never been in a car accident doesn't mean that there is something wrong with compulsory seat belt laws (or compulsory car insurance for that matter). It's available just in case.

Danoff there is more than just the military to fund. That is all up to discussion and action by the voting public. The morality itself is up to discussion. If its not covered under the bill of rights.

Exactly.

What is morality ? Is it not sujective to each individual ? Is not morality defined collectively in a democracy ?

It seems morality is what is dictated by Objectivism.

When we agree to any form of taxation . By accepting to live in this society you aggree to accept that at time s you will be forced against your will to pay for things you do not like. That is the compromise of living in a democracy .

👍 That's what I said!

Do you take exception then, to people assuming what you know and how you think?

No, because I always question my beliefs.

Agreed! 👍

 

[///M-Spec]

No, because I always question my beliefs.[/URL]

If your answer is no, why take the time to assure me of something you're not sure of yourself?


M

 

[Danoff]

Here's my list of government agencies and administrations to cut or keep

The Department of Agriculture ($20B) – Can go away almost completely.

The Department of Commerce ($10B) – We could eliminate the “communities grant” program. Also the “fisheries management”. I’d have to look further into this to see if we could eliminate this department entirely, but my guess is no.

The Department of Defense ($420B) – The DOD has to stay, though it could probably be managed better.

The Department of Education ($56B) – I’d say that some of the student loan and scholarship programs might be legitimate, but the rest can go.

The Department of Energy ($23.4B) – A lot of this is ok.

The Department of Health and Human Services ($67.2B) – Only the bioterrorism research is legit.

The Department of Homeland Security ($34.2B) – This one is ok

The Department of Housing and Urban Development ($28.5B) - Gone

The Department of the Interior ($10.6 B) – I’m sure a lot of this can be trimmed, but it isn’t as revolting as some of the others.

The Department of Justice ($20.3B) – Get rid of the drug enforcement.

The Department of Labor ($11.5B) – Could probably eliminated entirely. The scraps that might need to be saved could be easily given to some other deparment.

The Department of International Assistance ($13.3B) – Semi-ok. I don’t like a lot of the donations, but they’re useful for international relations anyway – so I’m lumping this in with defense.

The Department of Transportation ($57.5B) – Could be reduced substantially. Much of the airway allocation could be eliminated. Some of the highway safety would be redirected. Very likely, much of the interstate program should be controlled locally.

The Department of the Treasury ($11.6B) – Almost 100% necessary

The Department of Veteran’s Affairs ($33.4B) – Should be DOD

Corps of Engineers ($4.3B) – Ok

Environmental Protection Agency ($7.6B) – Gone

NASA ($16.5B) – Ok, could be DOD

National Science Foundation ($5.6B) – Ok. Again, could be seen as DOD work.

Small Business Administration ($593M) – Gone… but the budget isn’t exactly massive

Social Security Administration ($9.5B) – Gone, but first we have to get rid of the social security program and associated taxes.

I didn’t see the FDA or OSHA or IRS or Consumer Protection or a bunch of other things I wanted to cut. I also didn’t see the FBI or the CIA in the list. I assume these things are listed under the budgets of some of these administrations. It’s such a huge nasty mess – even figure out what the term “US government” refers to anymore is difficult because it’s everywhere.

 

[ledhed]

I am aware that there is more than just the military to fund - but some things cannot be up to the voting public. This is the whole point of the bill of rights - to prevent the majority from infringing the rights of the minorty. Would we consider it moral to castrate black people in an effort to eliminate them from our population? What if the majority (white people) voted for it? Would it be right then? It would certainly be considered unconstitutional, but in a democracy - government programs are up to the voting public right? So not only is it ok to castrate all black males, but it's ok to make those who are vehemently against that (white or black) to pay for it.

That is the tyranny of the majority. That kind of immoral behavior on the part of the majority is exactly the reason we have to have controls on what the majority is allowed to do (via government).

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the Bill of rights exist to counter that ? And then later say thats why we have the bill of rights . Where does the bill say you must be objectively moral ? Where does it say you have protection from taxes you find immoral objectively or otherwise ?
There is nothing in the constitution that protects your right to pay only those taxes that you deem moral . Period . The facts are that everything not covered in the constitution is subject to legislation by the representatives of the people and will become the law of the land . That is the reality. If you believe you need further protection than that in the bill of rights and the constitution then you must organise like minded individuals to create the conditions needed to ammend the constitution. Or compromise and except it , Revolt and attempt to remove the oppressive government or go elsewhere .

 

[MrktMkr1986]

If your answer is no, why take the time to assure me of something you're not sure of yourself?


M

A. I wasn't referring to my stance on property
B. I only read the question and not my quote along with the question so I thought you were just speaking in general. Yes, I'm absolutely sure of my views on private property and public property.

 

[ledhed]

This is why you pay taxes .

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(See Note 1)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article. I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

Clause 4: When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section. 3.
Clause 1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, (See Note 3) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Clause 2: Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies. (See Note 4)

Clause 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Clause 4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

Clause 5: The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section. 4.
Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Clause 2: The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, (See Note 5) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section. 5.
Clause 1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Clause 3: Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Clause 4: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section. 6.
Clause 1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. (See Note 6) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, beprivileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Clause 2: No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section. 7.
Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Clause 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Clause 3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 9.
Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (See Note 7)

Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Clause 6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Section. 10.
Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article. II.
Section. 1.
Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. (See Note 8)

Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Clause 6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, (See Note 9) the Same shall devolve on the VicePresident, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Clause 7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Clause 2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. (See Note 11)

Section. 3.
Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article. VI.
Clause 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names

This section giving the right for the " general welfare of the United States covers social programs .

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[Swift]

Just a quick note. I enjoy talking about these things. But marathon posts are BAD!

 

[///M-Spec]

A. I wasn't referring to my stance on property
B. I only read the question and not my quote along with the question so I thought you were just speaking in general. Yes, I'm absolutely sure of my views on private property and public property.

A. Good, because I wasn't either. In fact, your comments on property was a little out of left field, since they really didn't have anything to do with my original post.

B. It was general and specific at the same time. You replied directly to me on a generalization I made about people in this thread. I can only assume you disagreed with me enough to take it up with me directly. I'm not playing a word game here, there is a reason for it. Did you take exception to my original statement?


M

 

[///M-Spec]

Yes, a double post is nessessary in this case.

Ledhed... couldn't you have made your point with a link?


M

 

[ledhed]

Just a quick note. I enjoy talking about these things. But marathon posts are BAD!

Swift I had to post the whole thing for its context since one section supports the other . It shows that the whole issue WAS well thought out . It shows MANY examples of the need and the right to tax ! For everything from paying for administration to roads etc. etc. . Its the Constitution . If you are arguing for a protection you do not have . Then you must change it , or try to .

@ M - there is so much there that goes to the heart of the discussion to point to for and against . I did not feel a link would do justice in this case . For this discussion its a must have and a must read . IMO .

Its not that much longer than marketdudes is it ?

 

[///M-Spec]

Its not that much longer than marketdudes is it ?

Not by very much. But at least his posts are only 50% quotage.


M

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Here's my list of government agencies and administrations to cut or keep

The Department of Agriculture ($20B) – Can go away almost completely.

There goes 110,000 people's jobs. 70-75% of their expenditures go to domestic food assistance programs.

The Department of Commerce ($10B) – We could eliminate the “communities grant” program. Also the “fisheries management”. I’d have to look further into this to see if we could eliminate this department entirely, but my guess is no.

There goes 36,000 people's jobs. Who would issue patents if the DoC is eliminated?

The Department of Education ($56B) – I’d say that some of the student loan and scholarship programs might be legitimate, but the rest can go.

There goes another 4,500 jobs -- and billions of dollars worth of student aid.

The Department of Health and Human Services ($67.2B) – Only the bioterrorism research is legit.

Another 67,000 jobs gone. What about the CDC? The FDA? The NIH? SAMHSA? CMC?

The Department of Housing and Urban Development ($28.5B) - Gone

Along with nearly 11,000 jobs. Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac... GONE.

The Department of the Interior ($10.6 B) – I’m sure a lot of this can be trimmed, but it isn’t as revolting as some of the others.

Good bye National Parks. Make way for MegaCorp!

The Department of Justice ($20.3B) – Get rid of the drug enforcement.

This space intentionally left blank.

The Department of Labor ($11.5B) – Could probably eliminated entirely. The scraps that might need to be saved could be easily given to some other deparment.

17,000 jobs gone... as well as workplace safety laws.

The Department of Transportation ($57.5B) – Could be reduced substantially. Much of the airway allocation could be eliminated. Some of the highway safety would be redirected. Very likely, much of the interstate program should be controlled locally.

Which in turn would substantially reduce the 58,000 people that work for the DoT. Local control of the interstates? What if one state decides to have people driving on the left? Redesign the roads at the borders?

Environmental Protection Agency ($7.6B) – Gone

18,000 jobs... gone. All the progress made by the EPA's efforts... gone.

Small Business Administration ($593M) – Gone… but the budget isn’t exactly massive

20 million small businesses... gone or absorbed by larger publicly-traded corporations. Many minority-owned small businesses rely on the SBA.

Social Security Administration ($9.5B) – Gone, but first we have to get rid of the social security program and associated taxes.

50 million people homeless. Mostly elderly people.

I didn’t see the FDA or OSHA or IRS or Consumer Protection or a bunch of other things I wanted to cut.

That's because they are under some of the above listed organizations.

Congratulations, Dan. You've just managed to eliminate over 260,000 jobs and leave nearly 1/5 the entire US population homeless or in abject poverty -- among other things.

A. Good, because I wasn't either.

Then I misunderstood the comment.

In fact, your comments on property was a little out of left field, since they really didn't have anything to do with my original post.

Then I must have misunderstood that too...

B. It was general and specific at the same time. You replied directly to me on a generalization I made about people in this thread. I can only assume you disagreed with me enough to take it up with me directly.

I thought you were referring to me (that's why I got defensive). If you weren't, then never mind my comment -- I made a mistake.

Did you take exception to my original statement?

Now, no. You are absolutely right.

Not by very much. But at least his posts are only 50% quotage.


M

 

[Danoff]

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the Bill of rights exist to counter that ? And then later say thats why we have the bill of rights .

What? I said that's what the bill of rights is for. Where am I inconsistent? My argument is that the bill of rights is either not specific enough or we're ignorning it.

Where does the bill say you must be objectively moral ? Where does it say you have protection from taxes you find immoral objectively or otherwise ?

I'm talking about how the bill of rights gets to say what it does and why it is not (or at least should not be) up for vote.

There is nothing in the constitution that protects your right to pay only those taxes that you deem moral . Period .

I'm arguing for either more strict adherance to the constitution and bill of rights - which already says that the redistribution of wealth is unacceptable.

This section giving the right for the " general welfare of the United States covers social programs .

That would argue against socialism.

 

[Danoff]

There goes 110,000 people's jobs. 70-75% of their expenditures go to domestic food assistance programs.

Maybe we should employ them to dig ditches and fill them back up. That would be less destructive than employing them to waste other people's time and money as well.

There goes 36,000 people's jobs. Who would issue patents if the DoC is eliminated?

Re-read my comment about the DoC.

There goes another 4,500 jobs -- and billions of dollars worth of student aid.

It's as though you're purposely ignoring what I wrote.

Another 67,000 jobs gone. What about the CDC? The FDA? The NIH? SAMHSA? CMC?

Again, they'd be better off digging 67,000 ditches and filling them back up than working in the FDA.

Good bye National Parks. Make way for MegaCorp!

Again, ignoring what I wrote.

17,000 jobs gone... as well as workplace safety laws.

Good.

Which in turn would substantially reduce the 58,000 people that work for the DoT. Local control of the interstates? What if one state decides to have people driving on the left? Redesign the roads at the borders?

Are these real questions?

18,000 jobs... gone. All the progress made by the EPA's efforts... gone.

All of the anti-progress and wasted money...

20 million small businesses... gone or absorbed by larger publicly-traded corporations. Many minority-owned small businesses rely on the SBA.

You are anti-captialist aren't you.

50 million people homeless. Mostly elderly people.

Not the federal government's job.

Congratulations, Dan. You've just managed to eliminate over 260,000 jobs and leave nearly 1/5 the entire US population homeless or in abject poverty -- among other things.

I eliminted 260,000 jobs worth of waste and pumped billions upon billions of dollars back into the economy.

 

[Swift]

I eliminted 260,000 jobs worth of waste and pumped billions upon billions of dollars back into the economy.

OK, so where do those billions go? I'm being serious. No traps, just asking.

 

[Danoff]

OK, so where do those billions go? I'm being serious. No traps, just asking.

They go back into the pockets of tax payers - which in turn stimulates the economy and results in actual productive jobs rather than government waste. Additionally, the reduction in regulations allows business to expand and create even more production and jobs. Generally this would be fantastic for the economy, but the first effect would be lots of people looking for work. It would be better to stagger the shutdowns.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

OK, so where do those billions go? I'm being serious. No traps, just asking.

The billions are redistributed in a regressive manor (meaning the less you make, the less you get). See Chile circa 1973-1990.

Are these real questions?

Yes. Are these real solutions?

You are anti-captialist aren't you.

No.

Not the federal government's job.

That's what I've heard.

Generally this would be fantastic for the economy, but the first effect would be lots of people looking for work. It would be better to stagger the shutdowns.

I guess Chile forgot that memo.

Your use of the word "government" in such a way that it does not distinguish the difference between a real democracy and totalitarianism is just plain wrong in my opinion. Governments are active in markets all over the world (except Somalia). There's no need to destroy regulatory agencies in order to liberate businesses. If a business cannot survive with minimal government intervention, then they're not worth anyone's time or money.

Also, for someone who consider's himself an atheist you seem to take all of these untested policy changes (rather, policy reductions) on faith. Since the real world offers no evidence whatsoever to back up these expectations as certainties, any logical person would have to conclude that slashing so much of the government might be quite a gamble. Let me tell you this:

I refuse to gamble my future on policies that base so much of its hope on wishful thinking... especially when the prevailing belief is that if the policy changes fail, it means the failure is the right outcome because it is the only "moral" outcome.

If freedom is measured by the absence of laws (to be more specific, the absence of regulations on negative rights), the assertion that governments can restrict your rights and private entities (whether it be an individual or corporation) cannot is incorrect. In my opinion, freedom should be measured by how restricted your choice of actions are and how much power others have over you; whether it's the government, a business, or an individual.

...and since private property = power, I am for the redistribution of wealth (to a point).

And, yes, there is something wrong with Social Security - it's compulsory.

It may be compulsory but at least it's more efficient than privitization. First off, under privitization workers would assume all risks in investing. At least Social Security has a guaranteed safety net. Privitization would cause an immediate financial meltdown for those who have jobs but aren't making millions of dollars. Money moved into private accounts would no longer be available to the Social Security system to pay current users. People would still take money from Social Security, but the government (or what's left after Dan eliminates some regulatory agencies) would have to raise more money to pay them. That means higher taxes for everyone, cuts in benefits, or both. In effect, young adults like myself would be forced to save for our own retirement, and pay more taxes to support current Social Security recipients!

Gee, thanks.