This thread is a spinoff of two others.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry225436

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry225431

The second link supposes the existence of a welfare-warfare state.

Questions for Debate

1. How do you define “welfare-warfare state”?

2. Does the United States fit this definition?

A welfare - warfare state is one in which the collectivist philosophy known as fascism prevails. The central government confiscates the producers' income and then redistributes the same in order for megalomanic and demagogue bureaucrats to stay in power.

Welfare-warfare states tend to be imperialistic. Case in point NAZI Germany and the united States Of America. They usually depend on state sponsored terrorism in order to force their agenda into smaller countries. NAZI germany did it to western Europe. The US is doing it in the middle east.

TaTa

So- to be clear- since the income tax is a constitutional amendment- making it "constitutional"- are you saying any taxes are against "constitution"? Are you saying that there should be no goverment at all, because that would mean that you would have to take from "producers" to provide for goverment and all.

This sounds like some kind of convoluted group think logic the Freeman employed while robbing thier neighbors and such?

What SPECIFICALLY do you think the goverment is allowed to do? Is ANY tax okay with you- or are all taxes "unconstitutional"?

I think regardless of where you happen to go the concept of the human being is going to be intact. What I mean by this is I doubt such a question to be nothing more then a question of nurture alone. For instance what of altruism? It exists period end of debate on that. So my idea is how does that play in out in the context of any particular culture and or society. Its almost a basic foundation in many facets of that found in religion, and of course various religions today still carry out altruistic actions. I get confused in topics like this because it seems to imply a single direction only, or as if you can separate in a perfect sense nature from nurture, which to date no one can really. If its about chiefly a generational aspect or really more on learning, well I guess that’s something I can speak on really outside of that. Ultimately if people were in an end of story type format nothing more then the products of environment I doubt culture would have ever changed, on that note though its easy to see that children born in America do tend to speak English See there is no black and white answer to this question as posed because it does not account very well for the individual. Some people that get sent to prison for instance actually rehabilitate, others don’t, some people commit crimes, regardless of environment, and others don’t.

IF to break from that tone to I guess where this thread has ended up, I think its easy to see historically that a total libertarian and or utterly free society is a pipe dream. Regardless of system its always been a social system. In that you have laws, customs, and in general a pattern to life. So even if you abolish taxes, you will still be owning up and or living through somebody or some group of people, even if you happen to be in the minority at any giving time at the top. As aspect of democracy is that its not ruled by one person, or a small group of people. Such contexts of a society are typically looked upon really as communism by many or really tyranny. To place then in context the laws and or customs or a culture of a society of people in the hands of what would really be just that then would be an error I think towards democracy by in large only supporting the individual capitalistic sense of things. If you think say letting a major chain such as wal mart own American highways is a good thing, well that’s fine save in a business sense where are the highways going to be funded from? In that tone what would exist to stop wal-mart from imposing some kind of fee to use the highway, if not imposing even more rigid laws until only certain people could use the highway? You would then require that wal-mart respect in the same way government has to individual liberty as guaranteed by the constitution or charge a company with being government an enforcing democracy, which as far as I know is not something historically capitalistic business seems to be all about, really they seem to be about profit really, for its how companies survive and prosper. Though it would be funny to see education really being a product of wall street and it would indeed provide a far more acute method of advertising all through a human life cycle. If I may be so blunt it seems that the need of welfare almost comes about by simply desiring a purely capitalistic business environment. As such many universities really are cooperate universities already, as such is a major push of education in large in America. Cooperate take over, bankruptcies, and I guess the unreal fascination that everyone’s life in a survival of the fittest environment is always going to come out perfect and or even stable in its own sense to be seems to be applied, and in its own right speaks of humans as a resource and not so much as liberated individuals. It places liberty in the hands of wealth alone and proprietary rights of society in such hands, or like communism the wealth accumulates along with power to a small minority. As America is currently structured in my opinion in regards to taxes I see really as more of a fail safe mechanism to really what would be a monopoly really on human existence in this country if not a band aid to the effects of such.

Does this mean I agree with it, no, I could always favor more freedom, but I am not so blind by that to think that freedom exists in a purely no holds bar capitalist system, simply it does not exist in the slightest really. A person today like yesterday does not exist with total individual liberty, you have to survive via the way the system is designed for, and if you cant or wont, well really then what have you for a life? IN that I would just like to know where the liberty is really? You have the liberty to do what exactly with what in what? So again, I don’t view welfare as some negative agent of communism, for you never really escape living in some socialist system anyways.

What research have you conducted in order to ensure that the amendment was adopted pursuant to USC Art. V. May I remind you that the Constitution was adopted in order to protect OUR rights.

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

Oh, so you are saying the amendment is not consitutional then? A yes or no with an explanation would be fine.

Just to be sure, you are familiar with the 16th Amendment.

What research have you conducted in order to ensure that the amendment was adopted pursuant to USC Art. V. May I remind you that the Constitution was adopted in order to protect OUR rights.

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.

Thanks

Do you do this to make a point or do you have Cut & Paste issues? Either way it's really annoying and not constructive.

CR the ratification process for the 16th amendment was subverted, at least 3 states ( louisiana, texas, and tennesee ) violated their state constitutions in the way they ratified the 16th amendment. It was an ugly ugly mess...

texas and louisiana would have had to amend their own constitutions before voting to allow the government more taxing power, there are/were specific prohibitons in their constitutions preventing this from happening.

tennesee was required to wait for a new state legeslature to be seated before it could vote on it but did not.


Kentucky: The Kentucky legislature rejected the amendment 33-9, but Knox counted it as having passed 22-9.

Oklahoma: Oklahoma voted for the amendment but changed the wording to mean the opposite of the proposed amendment-even though a memo from chief legal
counsel Reuben Clark warned that states were not allowed to change the proposed amendment


even without all of the other problems in other states these five bring the number of stated needed to ratify the amendment ( knox counted 38 as having ratified it he needed 36 )

even without anything else just the top 3 would have prevented ratification. and these are the most glaring 5

FINALLY, someone who has enough testicular fortitude to go out there and do his own research. I can not understand those individuals who are astute enough to understand that the Bush administration is corrupt enough to invade Iraq under false pretenses yet somehow fail to understand that the same government is also corrupt enough to invade our pocketbooks in order to feed the welfare-warfare state.. Corrupt usurpers will always use the " we meant well" pretext. 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A US citizen is responsible for always questioning authority.

Pardon me, but if GuardianAngel did, in fact, do research, he provided no documentation to back up that "research." Without documentation, a publisher would laugh in his face.

I challenge GuardianAngel to provide some sources.

I have personally seen the documents. Each page has been certified as a true copy. The Textbooks are entitled the Law That Never Was If you have evidence that the documents are a fraud kindly so advise.

But have no fear , the welfare-warfare courts will not accept the documents as evidence. Their jobs is defend and protect the bureaucracy not the right of US citizens. They will use any pretext under the sun to penalize those individuals for having the audacity to question the almighty federal government.

Since GuardianAngel wasn't specific about what he based his post on, then how do you know what possible documents he was referring to? I'm sure GA can defend himself.



Perhaps the issue is less important than you seem to think.

Edited to add (I was too tired to complete post last night)

Here is a blog entry debunking Bill Benson’s work

http://www.quatloos.com/bill_benson_debunked.htm

You use the word “textbook.”

Has it been adopted by any state board of education or university?

When my kids were attending Dade County , Florida schools the local PTA was adamant that we attend PTA meetings. After all, if we wanted to keep America a free nation it was important that we participate in our kids' "education".

At the first meeting I asked the president how was the school system imparting a sense of freedom when taxpayers are COMPELLED to support government schools and children are COMPELLED to attend. I was never invited again.

So the chances that a government operated and financed system will adopt Bill Benson's book are "0" - zero.

At least the "road to hell is paved," which it might not be if no taxes were levied to do so.

Didn't the taxation start up as a response to the government's desire to wage war? Somebody please enlighten me on this, because I might be remembering incorrectly? If so, that opens up a whole new can of worms, doesn't it?

And what would the ruggedly individualistic anti-taxpayers on the board suggest for those who come back from the war maimed and unable to earn a living? That it was their idea to go in the first place and they are just plain S.O.L. for getting hurt?

And just whose grandmother would they cut off benefits for because she is sick and needs government funding for medicines so that she can also afford food? Or do we have enough icebergs in our globally-warming environment to put these unfortunate people on to feed the dwindling supply of polar bears?

Maybe helping others is less about fascism and more about "doing unto others as we would have them do unto us." Of course, one might only truly appreciate that when one has to be the recipient of such help.

Thanks BoF for providing that Bill Benson debunking. The really sad thing is that people have had their lives ruined by listening to that charlatan and thinking that they didn't have to pay their taxes. I remember the radio ads for "Global Prosperity" running during the Rush Limbaugh show about 15 years ago, and that was a complete Ponzi scheme.

PE, I know that your argument isn't totally religious here, but I missed the part of the bible where Jesus said that the government could confiscate your income at the point of a gun and give it to your neighbor. Perhaps you could enlighten me, but I remember from Proverbs that blessed are those who freely give to the poor, or something like that.

If you're a "grandmother" who has raised a bunch of kids and grandkids who won't buy you medicine, you have bigger problems than global warming.

I'm sorry, carlitoswhey, I didn't know that you had your income confiscated by the government at gunpoint. And I don't recall seeing the government hand my income over to my neighbor; did that happen to you?

And while we're at it, did not Jesus say to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"?

Look, I don't like paying taxes either, especially when a HUGE portion of it goes toward the war effort and, by extension, to mega-corporations who have no-bid contracts with the military.

But when it comes down to it, there are many government programs that are clearly for the good of the public--Medicare for instance, and Social Security. Without arguing the solvency or lack thereof of these programs, it cannot be denied that many, many people have benefited from these programs, starting back from the time when there weren't 401K's or employment specialists to tell employees of same.

Whose child would you deny immunizations to because the parents could not afford to pay for them? And even if you were that draconian, would you still do it knowing that it was quite likely that we would have epidemics of preventable diseases as a result? Public health is important, even if it is viewed from a purely selfish perspective. Forget the golden rule stuff; if the person next to you does not have a communicable disease, chances are that you aren't going to get one, either.


You know, we're so good at letting children and grandchildren "pursue their dreams" these days that we have neglected to instruct them in something that helped carry our nation through some pretty rough times generations ago--a sense of duty to each other and to our society.

It seems pretty clear to me that a person who feels no particular sense of responsibility to anyone or anything that is outside of his little world can also, easily, find reasons not to step forward to help a family member outside his little nuclear family sphere. I hope that is not the case, that even those who eschew the idea of public education, public health, and even road repairs, would at least give some loving care to those who were involved in their care and/or nurturance.

I'm sure that any of those who 'evade' paying income tax can tell you that the government is quite fond of using guns to...dissuade individuals from attempting to keep the money they worked for. To deny that the government uses coercive force, in the form of weapons to take money is to deny the nature of taxation.

A state in which widespread 're-distribution' of funds is used as a means to 'achieve' my favorite fluffy term, 'social justice'...as a side effect the government also gains the means [via taxmoney] to increase their monopoly of force which is often used to fight wars. Welfare-wafare.

Absolutely, there are few governments on Earth that do not.

CP

1) Bill Benson's work is more than "De-bunked'- it was bunk before they even had to go that far

2) PE- ya, they DO collect taxes at the barrel of a gun- it is called threat of prison and such- ya know?

3) I have to say- the goverment is NOT RESPONSIBLE for feeding your grandmother- I would say national security is at stake when you are talking about immunizations- the spanish flue was one of the biggest killers in world history- you need goverment response to a threat like that-

I think it is a very,um, well, snake oil salesmen argument for trying to say that the 16th amendement somehow "doesn't count" or some clap trap. There is only the most discredited sources that say that, somehow, that AMENDment - SOMEHOW- in some convoluted way- NOT already part of our constitution. It is, get over it, or support a repeal of the amendment.

Let's be clear on a couple of things:

1. "My" grandmothers are long dead. My last grandmother died a Canadian citizen in Canada, where they do seem to give more than a rat's derriere about the well-being of people not directly related to them, but that is the subject of another thread, I'm sure.

2. You break any law and you are, figuratively or literally speaking, subject to "gunpoint"; however, the few times I have exceeded the speed limit, no one pulled a gun on me.

You know, living in a country necessarily means being subject to the laws of that country. I would suggest that rather than whining about someone getting something you think they do not deserve for some reason, talk to your legislators, or work legitimately to replace them.

In the meantime, I still have enough skin on my nose that I'm not fussing and fuming about someone else's grandma or child or spouse getting aid if they need it from the government. What's your problem?

Have you talked to the people in Minneapolis, Minnesota?

Bridge Collapse in Minneapolis

Further, according to the Federal highway Administration there are 155, 144 bridges which are deficient and/or obsolete.



The Founding Fathers made it extremely difficult for the government to have standing armies and wage war. Unfortunately the DC mafia ignores the Constitution.


"Patrick Henry, attacking the military provisions of the proposed Constitution, subscribed to the popular notion that the two grievances were essentially one in the same. He expounded the traditional view that the standing army itself was the problem, and thus argued:

One of our first complaints, under the former government, was the quartering of troops upon us. This was one of the principal reasons for dissolving the connection with Great Britain. Here we may have troops in time of peace. They may be billeted in any manner to tyrannize, oppress, and crush us."

Consider again the words of Madison:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:32

So they adopted Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 which limits military appropriations to 2 years. Of course , this clause is completely ignored.




Hummmmm

Is that what was done before the advent of the welfare-warfare state in 1935?



True. But it must be done in a constitutional manner. The Mormons have an excellent welfare program. I have never heard that they had to seize someone's property in order to keep their program financially afloat.

First of all, bridges/highways need continued maintenance; it's not just a one-time prospect, especially when said highways and bridges are subjected to ever more traffic in the form of semi-trucks transporting goods.

And would you care to compare the loss of life and property on that Minneapolis bridge to the millions, yes, even tens of millions of dollars worth of goods and people transported across it over the years? I am not excusing what happened; I am merely stating the obvious: it was tax dollars at work that made it possible for bridges and the Interstate highway system to be built, not private funding.

Yes, the Mormons are known for taking good care of their own people. It's too bad that other denominations aren't as well-organized or enlightened when it comes to helping their own. But does that also mean that atheists are out of luck because they don't have a religious community on which to depend?

As far as what happened to people pre-1935, there were towns of vagrants called "Hoovervilles" where mostly men banded together and tried to stay alive while looking for work. There was widespread starvation after the Stock Market crash and the Dust Bowl.

Did you think the so-called Welfare state started in a vacuum? Of course not. Federal programs were instituted in reaction to a massive Depression which was crippling the country.

We are, comparatively speaking, in quite cushy circumstances these days in comparison to those days. But remove the programs that were instituted to help American citizens, and you would have a different story. As it is, there are still many people who are missed by the system, but it is far better now than it was before the "welfare" programs.

In the UK up until the the late 1800's roads and bridges were PRIVATELY OWNED.

In this country neither state nor federal bureaucrats are concerned about the loss of lives and capital since the welfare-warfare courts are going to make sure that any lawsuits are unsuccessful. And even if there is compensation it will come from the taxpayers. A private corporation could no do that. So there would be a motivation to properly maintain the infrastructure.



It is an individual's responsibility to save for old age.

But the market crash is a good example of what happens when the government decides to intervene in the economy. In 1913 the collectivist group known as the "progressives" were successful in adopting legislation creating the Federal Reserve Bank in order to control the dollar and create and "elastic currency". The end result was the most severe depression in our nation's history.

Instead of learning the lesson and getting out of the way they decided to create the welfare-warfare state.!!!!!!!!!

Questions for Debate

1. How do you define "welfare-warfare state"?

I use Chalmers Johnson's word of military-keynesianism.

I would define a welfare-warfare state as a condition wherein a standing army increases both in frequency and size to the point where they develop their own internal dynamic and exert self interest back into domestic issues. Or said another way, when a Praetorian Guard develops their own political agenda and wherein public coffers are challenged at the expense of the guard. The state now increases power through expansion and the expansion creates opportunities within the guard. It is a vicious circle where history has shown will lead to corruption, loss of liberty, and collapse.


2. Does the United States fit this definition?

Recognizing this is America's Debate I use this word cautiously in an effort to not offend...yes.

The UK did not experience rapid westward expansion the way the United States did--you're comparing apples and oranges. You need only check the land area of England, Scotland and Wales to see that the comparison isn't very realistic. In addition, the ancient Romans did not build bridges and aqueducts in North America.

In addition, the UK was governed by the monarchy for hundreds of years, so yes, there was a lot of private ownership. So the nobleman or royal who owned the town was looked upon to be the protector and benefactor of the little folks who were beholden to him, with very inconsistent and uneven results. That includes keeping the public works in good repair. If our goal is to have privately-owned little fiefdoms, bridges and highways, we shouldn't have rejected the monarchy when we had our little revolution.

Yes, it is an individual's responsibility to save for old age, now. That wasn't always the case. There were extended families with large numbers of children to deal with the contingency of the high infant mortality rate and the need for extra hands on the farm homestead. The woman of the house was not compensated for giving birth to and raising a bevy of kids along with the household chores and cooking. All well and good if the kids provided for her when she couldn't manage for herself.

But where is the loyalty to parents these days? Are the children dependable when Mom and Dad have problems beyond their ability to deal with? Why not a financial cushion of some sort like Social Security--a fund to help get them through the non-productive years? After all, those who work pay into it, right?

It never ceases to amaze me just how calloused people in this country can be when it comes to helping others in need. So self-absorbed, and so afraid that someone else might end up with a little more than they have even though they might not be seen as "worthy enough." Such selfishness can be summed up in the trite little axiom, "He who dies with the most toys wins."

I'm not talking luxury condos here for people in need, but judging by some of the responses here you would think so. I just find it curious that in a country that prides itself on its religiosity and "one nation under God," we are shown up on a consistent basis by "godless" European countries that provide for their own under what is fearfully called (by our politicians) a socialized system. One need only watch the movie "Sicko" to see that there are some very positive instances where the European models work very well, and this is according to American expatriates as well as native-born Europeans. Yes, when you're not constantly fighting wars, you can do some great things for the people in your country.

But I will allow that the military/industrial complex indeed has more control in this country than what would be considered healthy, and in that sense it is a warfare state. It's time we stopped thinking that a war-based economy is best for the U.S.A. when so much blood and treasure can be expended with such miserably unacceptable results.

Of all the strawmen used against libertarians, this is the most common and my least favorite. No one here, as far as I can tell, is suggesting that individuals should not give money to those in need; that would be callous. What some are saying is that individuals should not be forced to give money to those in need. The difference in these two statements is astronomical. The former would be a sweeping statement of social philosophy while the other one based on a particular philosophy's idea of the proper role of government. It is callous not to give to charity...however it is not charity if you are forced to pay it, nor is it callous to protest about your being forced to pay it.

CP

The federal and state governments ought to let private entities - build and manage highways and bridges:

Street Smart examines private, market-based alternatives for road services, both in theory and practice. The book explores at least four such possible directions for private services, including testing and licensing vehicles and drivers; management of government-owned road facilities; franchising; and outright private ownership. The book further traces the history of private roads in Great Britain and the United States and examines contemporary examples of entrepreneurial innovation in road pricing, privatization, and marketization in environs as diverse as Singapore, California, Ghana, Norway, and England.

The main obstacle to private road services rests with political classes reluctant to give up their lucrative sources of power, wealth and influence through current government road monopolies. However, those seeking responsive road services determined by the free interplay of consumers and private suppliers will find Street Smart making a powerful and authoritative case for the need for change and provides essential understanding of the complex issues involved.

Want to guess what changed that?


If you're going to impugn the neutrality and fairness of all federal courts please back this up with something.


Just curious, Con. Have you read "The Buffalo Creek Disaster?" It's a must read for law students. Do you appreciate how hard piercing the corporate veil is? Do you realize that is extremely rational for corporations to avoid infrastructure maintenance costs because, as Buffalo Creek demonstrated, it is practically impossible to hang responsible CEOs and board members for killing hundreds of people?

I don't think economist Scarbrough was rhetorical when she wrote "Capital needs the state to ensure social peace and political stability; labour needs the state to limit the predations of capital."


Why make an exception? If it's rational to keep your money out of government coffers it's also rational to keep your money out of NGOs.

How do you define "welfare-warfare state"?
I have no damn idea what this is. When I first saw it I thought the term was speaking to unsuccessful Reagan and Thatcherite retrenchement policies.

Does the United States fit this definition?
I don't know.

That they care about people not related to them is commendable. Are you saying that those advocating private charity do not?


Hmm. What exactly made you pull over then? Why not just keep going and ignore the flashing lights?


How exactly are those against forcible income redistribution "whining" about those who don't deserve something?


I know you weren't addressing me directly, but my problem is quite clear. I see the endgame of the government "help" and I think it will hurt more than it helps. See bankrupt social security / welfare state, France, Germany, etc. I see that government control of institutions begets inefficiency. Etc.

We are 30-50 years behind Europe's socialism. By the time the compassionate among us have forced us into semi-socialism, those models will have completely failed. The cherry-picking on the left is surreal - I had a conversation with a friend about how "those army guys in Sicko" got great medical care. Well, yeah, the prison-dictatorship of Cuba put them in the best hospital to embarrass America. When you don't trade money, you trade favors and influence. Kim Jung-Il isn't starving, you know.


I second CP's response to this. It is offensive and insulting to call private charity advocates callous.

This ignores the issue I take with taxation. NGOs acquire money as a result of voluntary donations, governments take money and imprison those who don't pay them...then they take the money 'owed' to them.

CP

I didn't pull over because of a fear of having a gun pulled on me or being arrested. I was breaking the law; the law enforcement officer caught me. Pulling over and paying the consequences was the RIGHT THING TO DO.

There will always be "forcible income distribution." Perhaps it isn't whining on the part of some people when they complain about the way the income is redirected, but it always seems to be the response of some people, even as long ago as the 70's to gripe and moan about food stamps and "welfare queens" when it was apparent that there are also people who are deserving of help and who do not manipulate the system. What I see is more corporations benefitting from government help as well, case in point a company in Muskegon that decided in spite of its profits that it "couldn't afford" to pay its share of cleaning up the water it polluted, so the city government buckled and passed on the cost to the residents. Of course it was corporate blackmail, because implicit in the company's complaint was the threat that it would just move elsewhere if the city didn't comply.

As far as the selfishness that I hear in a lot of the complaints, what else would one think when the conversation inevitably culminates to "I don't know why I should spend My hard-earned money on a bunch of..." But that isn't whining or selfishness, is it? It just sounds like it to those of us who don't feel that way. And just how do we magically know who actually deserves something and who doesn't? It isn't always apparent.

Maybe it's a "glass half-full/glass half-empty" thing. I am just thankful to have the money to live and to be able to pay taxes. No, I'm not thankful about it all the time, but I'm not complaining most of the time, either, when someone else benefits from what some people consider government largesse and I perceive as someone being able to live their lives without threat of starvation or going without life-saving medications, and while able to have their children attend a public school with some, if not the highest, educational standards.

If you and CP find what I have said offensive about calloused, self-absorbed people who begrudge other people a means of making it when other means are not available or highly unlikely to be attained, and if you and CP are among those who contribute privately to charities and other community works that help the disadvantaged, or, better yet, roll up your own sleeves and help; you need to realize that my comments are not directed at you. However, I will not apologize to anyone who does not see any need or obligation to help his or her fellow human being if he or she has a chance to do so. There are selfish, greedy people in this country who don't help, don't contribute, ever. Yes, giving willingly is the highest expression of good. But in a society where an individual's good will and generous giving cannot be depended on to feed or clothe or house another person in desperate need, there is assistance available through the government. Knowing that many would do without basic needs for living without these government programs because there just aren't enough private funds available, would you begrudge those in need?

Recently in our county and in the Grand Rapids area, areas hit by unemployment while the rest of the country is doing better, the food trucks haven't had enough food to distribute to the needy.

How do you feel about cold calls where the person on the other end is continually soliciting for contributions to the Fraternal Order of Police Fund, the Red Cross, the Cancer Society, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the VFW, and any of a hundred other charities? I know how I feel when I say I can't help them. Some of these services are duplications; many are not. How about the family whose house burned down because of faulty wiring that they didn't even know about? Or the victims of tornados? Shouldn't there be something in place to help them? When the insurance companies decide to renege on promises, what then? Will taking up a collection around the neighborhood get the family on their feet?

What is government for, anyway? Just fighting wars, making laws, and perpetuating itself? Isn't it to serve the people?

No, private charity advocates are not "callous." People who do not contribute at all when they can and discourage others from contributing are the calloused ones.

HUH?

In 1958, in answer to cries that coal mining wastes were polluting streams, the government of West Virginia ordered coal companies to build ponds to keep the acidic water from seeping into creeks and rivers. The blame should be placed upon the State of West Virginia, which had ordered the unstable ponds to be constructed in the first place.

Another earthen dam break that occurred four years later did not even have the smokescreen of a private firm to be saddled with blame. The collapse of Idaho's newly-constructed Teton Dam in June, 1976, killed 11 people and more than 16,000 cattle, and left 25,000 people homeless. Government had more than its fingerprints on this disaster, as the fiasco belonged wholly to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Congress that ordered it.

Do you appreciate how hard piercing the government 's corporate veil is? Do you realize that is extremely rational for government agencies to avoid infrastructure maintenance costs because, as Buffalo Creek demonstrated, it is practically impossible to hang responsible bureaucrats and for killing hundreds of people. While you are it ask the Davidians!!!!!

This is a perfect example of the tendency my signature describes. It is an appeal to emotion. Simply needing something does not give one the right to that thing, PE. If someone really needs my money, the money does not become their's. That, in essence, is what this comes down to, people who need my money vote individuals into office who are likely to take my money and redistribute it. I feel for needy/poor people, which is why I have donated over 400 hours of my time to charity in the last 4 years and why I reguarly donate my cash, with that said, it is nothing short of theft when my money is taken from me and essentially given to a charity that I did not choose. Having a need for something is not synonymous with having a right to something, especially if that something belongs to someone else.

CP

They are proceeding pursuant to the marxist slogan:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Karl Marx - 1875
"Critique of the Gotha Program"

A few centuries before the Marxist slogan in the aforementioned post, a great man once said, "To him that [sic] knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Another quotation from a great man in the same book says: "Inasmuch as you did it unto these, the least of my brethren, you have done it unto me."

By all means, when it comes to helping your fellow human beings, let your conscience be your guide. But don't try to pass off what I have written as merely "Marxist." It goes a little deeper than that.

Yes, in this society our freedom is sacrosanct. If we want to take a trip to the Caribbean or buy a half-million dollar home, we shouldn't let something as trivial as promoting "the general welfare" of our fellow Americans, even needy ones, weigh on the minds of our legislators and constrain them to tax us some more because, gosh darn it, it's forcing us to pay higher taxes!

They can wiretap us ostensibly to fight terrorists, they can put cameras in every intersection of our towns, they can make us take our shoes off at airports and even look at us with x-ray equipment that leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination, all for our "safety." They have access to our health records, to information when we open bank accounts and apply for loans, for how much and for what, all in the name of "national security."

But touch our pocketbooks, well, now that's the last straw! So once again, we're probably going to select leaders who will lie about not raising taxes in order to get elected and, once again, we'll get precisely what we deserve if not what we want to represent us in the government. George W. Bush liked to say in his campaigns, "How d'ya like those tax cuts?" only to turn around and get us into a war that is costing us--what, two billion dollars a month!? Or was it per week? And where do you suppose that money is coming from?

Ever heard of "penny wise and pound foolish"?

PE, I mean this with all due respect; what are you talking about? Nether I nor Contumacious have defended any of our government's intrusive policies that you have mentioned above. It's not as though we would not [and in my case, have not] criticized such actions in the past.

Precisely. Except in this 'society' [I hate that word], freedom is not sacrosanct. Everyone thinks they want more freedom, so what we get in this 'soceity' [I hate that word] is a compromise between 300,000,000 individuals' definition of freedom.

CP

I am saying this: Of all the things that we criticize this current government for doing, helping the poor and disadvantaged should not be one of them, unless they're not doing it effectively. And I'll eagerly concede that bureaucracy could be much more efficient with less "fluff" and fewer political appointments to get in the way of government operation.

This behemoth of government was caught sitting on its thumbs when Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, and many, many people suffered as a result. But I don't see or hear of the same difficulties experienced by huge corporations when they need a hand from the government.

I respect you and fellow Libertarians who say No, we don't want the government taking more power. They are corrupt and inefficient, and they misuse the funds of the people. In that I am on the same page with you. However, I believe that government exists to serve the people and, unlike you, I believe it reasonable for the reputedly most powerful nation in the world to see to the health and well-being of its citizens. We send tons of wheat, corn and soybeans to other countries to help the needy there, and yet we can't help our own?

As it is, we have a government controlled by people who care less about the well-being of its people than for accruing power for themselves ostensibly to fight the "War on Terror". And while cargo ships can still come into our seaports with any number of materials that can be used to make bombs or possibly poison the populace, our President and his administration is more concerned with sinking many more billions of dollars and, more importantly, precious lives in an effort to stop the conflict in Iraq, not to mention spying on our own people in our communications.

Actually, I do see the point about the welfare/warfare state; I'm just saying that taking care of your own people who cannot take care of themselves isn't such a bad idea, while pouring our national treasure and lives into a war where there will be (at best) a compromise on our concept of "success" after several more years of deployments and wasting the national treasury is a bad idea.

You make it appear as though 'helping the poor and disadvantaged' carried with it no consequences. You cannot do that by force without harming others, that is the fatal flaw of government.

And again, we shouldn't be doing either. On top of being corrupt and inefficient, the government, in my view is an unethical institution and it is primarily for that reason that we are not on the same page regarding government 'help' for the 'disadvantaged'.

Taking care of individuals who cannot care for themselves is a good idea. Forcing one individual to care for and subsidize someone who cannot care of themselves, however, is not.

CP

Try to find a country, CP, where you aren't "forced" by the government to do something you don't want to do. You might possibly find a volcanic island on the Pacific rim where they don't have a lot of the amenities we have in this country, and they therefore have fewer responsibilities and lower if any taxes. Good luck with that.

I would personally be a lot happier knowing that my tax dollars were not going toward continuing the debacle in Iraq. It's called "throwing good money after bad". However, I am constrained to contribute whether I believe in the cause or not.

I personally would much rather see that those in need were helped rather than spending money on guns and bombs and someone's wet dreams of military glory. Please, U.S. Government, direct your funds to helping those who need help. "Force me" to pay taxes to help the disadvantaged--it's much better than waging a war with a questionable outcome (not to mention questionable motives)!

PE, you know you can help the disadvantaged yourself, without being forced! I realize that may be a foreign concept for a BHL, but give it a shot.

PE, this well beside the point. I did not say that a country exists without a coercive government, in fact, you cannot have a goverment without coercion.

Would you give money to the disadvataged without being forced to? In the very likely event that the answer is 'yes', I fail to see your point here.

CP

Yes, I have. My point is that I would choose what I was "coerced" to do if I could, and paying taxes to continue waging protracted wars would not be my choice. Helping others would. Surely Universal Health Care wouldn't cost as much as this war in Iraq has to date.


Ah, two-line wisdom from Bikerdad, the one who told me on this forum when I first joined four years ago that if I was against the war, I was for the terrorists! While I'm sure you meant it wholeheartedly and it felt good to write it, it was uninformed, highly prejudicial, and WRONG.

I've really gotta thank you for that, though, because that accusation was what prompted Curmudgeon to join . These days I take your posts with a grain of salt, so I will give your little dig a little more attention than it deserves.

You know, not everybody who hasn't posted in the "I GOT CAUGHT" thread hasn't done so because they're just sitting on their thumbs not doing anything. Suffice it to say that I am aware of things that I can do for the sake of others, and what I am capable of doing I usually do. But that is not something I feel I need to crow about to anyone in order to get my "reward".

Since you see yourself as sufficiently sagacious to pontificate, I am sure you must already know that even willing persons of limited energy and resources are no match for an organized effort on the part of community leaders to address the issues of health care and hunger. That's right! There is still plenty that needs to be done even if everyone pitches in to help. And you know that's not going to happen.

Whatever good I do, even were I engaged in doing it 24/7, is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the need in our communities these days. I am aware of this--are you?