A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[Vidi]

I reject the resolution entirely as such equal distribution of "benevolence" can only be attained through a socialistic redistribution of wealth, which I fundamentally oppose.

Excuse me? The OP forbids the federal government from dispensing ANY form of benevolence on anybody. How can that be a socialisitc redistribution of wealth?

any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all

Thats socialism or its cousin, communism. The government, if it exists, MUST make laws, it MUST regulate. Its the very nature of the beast. If EVERY law must benefit EVERYONE equally, then either the government can not exist or it must be socialist or communist.

Sorry, but thats how I see it.

 

[dblack]

A loan shark is no one's savior.

You're missing the point. Who we call a "loan shark" is a matter of opinion. How high is too high when it comes to interest rates? As others here have pointed out, being willing to pay higher interest rates is sometimes the only way a person with poor credit can get a loan. Setting legal limits on that is, essentially, setting legal limits on who has access to credit.

It gets even worse when the federal government insures loans made at these usurious interest rates. There is no real impetus for those making such loans to ensure that the people they are loaning the money to are capable of paying the loans back. Those who take these loans have no real reason to pay them back when they know the loans will be paid for should they default.

Exactly. And lenders have no reason not to make the loans, no matter how risky or ill-advised they may be. This is the kind of government intervention that is debilitating to the economy.

 

[Foxfyre]

I reject the resolution entirely as such equal distribution of "benevolence" can only be attained through a socialistic redistribution of wealth, which I fundamentally oppose.

Excuse me? The OP forbids the federal government from dispensing ANY form of benevolence on anybody. How can that be a socialisitc redistribution of wealth?

any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all

Thats socialism or its cousin, communism. The government, if it exists, MUST make laws, it MUST regulate. Its the very nature of the beast. If EVERY law must benefit EVERYONE equally, then either the government can not exist or it must be socialist or communist.

Sorry, but thats how I see it.

I did not say that every law must benefit everybody equally. I said government at any level cannot use the people's money to benefit one group that does not benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

So, if they cut a subsidy check for say people living in one place, they have to cut a subsidy check for everybody else too. And as that will not be financially feasible, they won't be voting to buy votes for a particular constituency.

Certainly those who don't need or want a particular government service don't have to apply for it or use it. But anybody can.

 

[Darkwind]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

Point number 1:

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

It was considered self evident that to spend more money than one earned was a moral inconsistency. It was considered in the past, and should be considered today, an axiom that if there is a need to spend the public treasury on a public need; that need would be so self evident that no debate would be considered necessary and everyone would recognize the need.

Point Number 2:

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

It is obvious to all that the use of the peoples money has degraded to a contest of who can bribe the most critical demographic for the purpose of remaining in power. This is a criminal act morally, and should be codified legislatively. There must be a need, beyond the need of the representative, to fulfill and it must be Constitutionally authorized before it is even debated.

Point Number 3:

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

this is more a matter of experts, but strikes Me as common sense.

Point number 4,5,& 6:

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

4 & 5 are the same argument and 6 is a logical resolution.


Yeah, its late and I'm kind of tired. lol

 

[Vidi]

Excuse me? The OP forbids the federal government from dispensing ANY form of benevolence on anybody. How can that be a socialisitc redistribution of wealth?

any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all

Thats socialism or its cousin, communism. The government, if it exists, MUST make laws, it MUST regulate. Its the very nature of the beast. If EVERY law must benefit EVERYONE equally, then either the government can not exist or it must be socialist or communist.

Sorry, but thats how I see it.

I did not say that every law must benefit everybody equally. I said government at any level cannot use the people's money to benefit one group that does not benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

So, if they cut a subsidy check for say people living in one place, they have to cut a subsidy check for everybody else too. And as that will not be financially feasible, they won't be voting to buy votes for a particular constituency.

Certainly those who don't need or want a particular government service don't have to apply for it or use it. But anybody can.

Every law is the use of taxpayer money, as it must be enforced. If there is no enforcement, then the law is irrelevent. If a citizen chooses to take advantage of the benefit or not is irrelevent under your resolution ( as worded ) as the benefit MUST be presented to them in the first place.

Therefore, your resolution would either bind the hands of government to complete inaction or it would force it into a socialist or communist state.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thats socialism or its cousin, communism. The government, if it exists, MUST make laws, it MUST regulate. Its the very nature of the beast. If EVERY law must benefit EVERYONE equally, then either the government can not exist or it must be socialist or communist.

Sorry, but thats how I see it.

I did not say that every law must benefit everybody equally. I said government at any level cannot use the people's money to benefit one group that does not benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

So, if they cut a subsidy check for say people living in one place, they have to cut a subsidy check for everybody else too. And as that will not be financially feasible, they won't be voting to buy votes for a particular constituency.

Certainly those who don't need or want a particular government service don't have to apply for it or use it. But anybody can.

Every law is the use of taxpayer money, as it must be enforced. If there is no enforcement, then the law is irrelevent. If a citizen chooses to take advantage of the benefit or not is irrelevent under your resolution ( as worded ) as the benefit MUST be presented to them in the first place.

Therefore, your resolution would either bind the hands of government to complete inaction or it would force it into a socialist or communist state.

And yet the U.S. Government ran under the concept expressed in the resolution for about 150 years or so without feeling the least bit bound. Why is that do you think?

 

[Foxfyre]

Darkwind, your post is provocative and I'll get back to it when I have more time to give it justice.

 

[Vast LWC]

The federal government is not given the task of being a banker for "poor" people who cannot afford credit. What happened to saving for what you wanted? You want it badly enough, you give up some other things. Or, if not able to go beyond the basics, and unwilling to improve your lot, you just continue in the socio-economic strata that you inhabit. It is not up to the government to improve anyone's lot in life, especially if they are unwilling to do so on their own initiative.

I'm not sure I mentioned anywhere that the government should act as a "banker" for anyone.

I was making the point that they should allow states to enforce the usury laws that formerly protected people from criminal activity, as what was formerly criminal is now commonplace in the banking industry.

They certainly do have the power to do this, as they are given the constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce.

I don't believe I mentioned the government lending money to anyone.

 

[Darkwind]

Thats socialism or its cousin, communism. The government, if it exists, MUST make laws, it MUST regulate. Its the very nature of the beast. If EVERY law must benefit EVERYONE equally, then either the government can not exist or it must be socialist or communist.

Sorry, but thats how I see it.

I did not say that every law must benefit everybody equally. I said government at any level cannot use the people's money to benefit one group that does not benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

So, if they cut a subsidy check for say people living in one place, they have to cut a subsidy check for everybody else too. And as that will not be financially feasible, they won't be voting to buy votes for a particular constituency.

Certainly those who don't need or want a particular government service don't have to apply for it or use it. But anybody can.

Every law is the use of taxpayer money, as it must be enforced. If there is no enforcement, then the law is irrelevent. If a citizen chooses to take advantage of the benefit or not is irrelevent under your resolution ( as worded ) as the benefit MUST be presented to them in the first place.

Therefore, your resolution would either bind the hands of government to complete inaction or it would force it into a socialist or communist state.

yes, every law should be enforced. The President does NOT get to decide which ones will and which ones will not.

 

[Darkwind]

Darkwind, your post is provocative and I'll get back to it when I have more time to give it justice.

At your pleasure lass. I'll be in and out for the whole week.

 

[Unkotare]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

While the above is certainly a carefully crafted and well intentioned concept, I must so very, very respectfully suggest that it is perhaps - just perhaps - not entirely practical. The actual implementation of that carefully crafted and well intentioned concept would, it seems in my oh-so-humble opinion, involve many more complications and contradictions with existing obligations than may perhaps - just perhaps - have been considered. Furthermore, the wording of this would-be Amendment seems to leave too wide an avenue for interpretation to avoid politicization to a degree that would render the concept meaningless. All of the foregoing is likely moot in any case since, in my oh-so-so-humble opinion, there is virtually no chance that such an Amendment would pass.

I pray that my comments will not be interpreted as overly aggressive or contrarian, and I humbly beg the forgiveness of anyone who might take them as such.

 

[Vidi]

Let me put this to you:

I would argue that risk is shared.

If someone buys the house next door to mine, but goes bankrupt and the house falls into disarray and stays vacant, MY property values suffer.

Should there not then be some mechanism to protect me from the foolish risks taken by others? Should the irresponsible behavior of others cost me?

Yes, this is the core difference in philosophy between libertarians and, for lack of a better term 'statists' (no insult intended). You want a government whose primary purpose is to function as an insurance company and assumes all risk is a public concern. As this fundamentally violates self-determination, and actively interferes with our personal decisions regarding how much risk we are willing to accept, I reject it categorically.

There will always be secondary (tertiary, etc...) effects of someone in society suffering misfortune (or enjoying good fortune for that matter). But freedom requires us to accept this. Insisting that we be protected from every inadvertent side-effect of others' decisions effectively disallows those decisions and squelches personal freedom. It implies that every decision we make requires permission from the state.

No. Tertiary effects are taxation without representation.

I dont want to take personal responsibility for your actions which I cannot control. I will take responsibility for mine and mine alone. Where your actions have a direct effect on my well being and the well being of my family is where governmental oversight begins. And ONLY there.

 

[Darkwind]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

While the above is certainly a carefully crafted and well intentioned concept, I must so very, very respectfully suggest that it is perhaps - just perhaps - not entirely practical. The actual implementation of that carefully crafted and well intentioned concept would, it seems in my oh-so-humble opinion, involve many more complications and contradictions with existing obligations than may perhaps - just perhaps - have been considered. Furthermore, the wording of this would-be Amendment seems to leave too wide an avenue for interpretation to avoid politicization to a degree that would render the concept meaningless. All of the foregoing is likely moot in any case since, in my oh-so-so-humble opinion, there is virtually no chance that such an Amendment would pass.

I pray that my comments will not be interpreted as overly aggressive or contrarian, and I humbly beg the forgiveness of anyone who might take them as such.

So, it would be the perfect bill?

 

[Vidi]

???? Why the emphasis on interest rates? That's a big tool used to fight inflation, why are you putting limits on it?

Because, by far, the largest current method of transferring money directly from the poor to the rich in this country is interest on debt.

Specifically, interest rates of about 30% that can be found on credit cards and other forms of credit generally used by poorer folks.

If one wants to make sure there is no need for federal funding to be extended to the poor, (and cutting off funding for poor folks is surely what this amendment is aimed to do) then stopping creditors from charging outrageous usury fees would be an excellent first step.

And don't tell me people need to be smarter about borrowing money. If the circumstances are dire enough, anyone will try to get credit, no matter what the interest rate, and that's when they get trapped.

Especially in the rather common circumstance where a payment is missed, and the interest rates on a credit card suddenly go up from 8% to 29.9%.

A top interest rate of 10% will leave plenty of room to fight inflation.

The federal government is not given the task of being a banker for "poor" people who cannot afford credit. What happened to saving for what you wanted? You want it badly enough, you give up some other things. Or, if not able to go beyond the basics, and unwilling to improve your lot, you just continue in the socio-economic strata that you inhabit. It is not up to the government to improve anyone's lot in life, especially if they are unwilling to do so on their own initiative.

the price of things went up while wages remained at a constant.

My brother in law works for a company that just had its best year ever making more profits than it ever had before hundreds of millions of dollars.

At review time, the employees were given a 1.25% "merit" raise maximum. Can we really expect people to save money if their wages, even when theyre wildly successful, do not increase with the cost of living?

 

[Vidi]

LWC posted in his previous post:

If one is going to make a legislation that revokes relief to poor people, surely it is in everyone's best interests to help said poor people out of the hole they have dug themselves into, which is a good part of the reason they require the assistance in the first place.

In one sense I agree. It would be unconscionably and unjustifiably cruel to abruptly revoke Social Security and Mediare at the federal level after making millions of people dependent on these programs. . . but. . . .

We could begin now to slowly and carefuly back out of these programs at the federal level in small increments just as they have accrued and begin to privatize them.

Except for allocating tracts of unimproved land to homesteaders way back when, I can't think of any case in which government has relieved poverty to any significant degree by giving people stuff. I rather go with Ben Franklin's philosophy that we do people no kindness by making them easier in their poverty, but true compassion is leading or driving them out of it.

NO! NO! NO! A thousand times NO!

Privatizing Social Security is BAD! There is NO PROFIT to be made from it.

It would be better to put a time limit on it, saying that it will continue for so many years and then anyone born after that date will need this new privatized program weve come up with.

But taking the existing system and trying to turn a profit on it will never work.

 

[P@triot]

The Founders could not have envisioned how our country would change.

Very true - which is why they built an amendment process in which allows for the Constitution to be altered for the changes they could not possibly have envisioned. Sadly, our government refuses to follow the law and the just bypasses the amendment process (case in point - the unconstitutional Obamacare).

 

[dblack]

Let me put this to you:

I would argue that risk is shared.

If someone buys the house next door to mine, but goes bankrupt and the house falls into disarray and stays vacant, MY property values suffer.

Should there not then be some mechanism to protect me from the foolish risks taken by others? Should the irresponsible behavior of others cost me?

Yes, this is the core difference in philosophy between libertarians and, for lack of a better term 'statists' (no insult intended). You want a government whose primary purpose is to function as an insurance company and assumes all risk is a public concern. As this fundamentally violates self-determination, and actively interferes with our personal decisions regarding how much risk we are willing to accept, I reject it categorically.

There will always be secondary (tertiary, etc...) effects of someone in society suffering misfortune (or enjoying good fortune for that matter). But freedom requires us to accept this. Insisting that we be protected from every inadvertent side-effect of others' decisions effectively disallows those decisions and squelches personal freedom. It implies that every decision we make requires permission from the state.

No. Tertiary effects are taxation without representation.

I dont want to take personal responsibility for your actions which I cannot control. I will take responsibility for mine and mine alone. Where your actions have a direct effect on my well being and the well being of my family is where governmental oversight begins. And ONLY there.

Yet you're suggesting that a neighbor taking risks that might affect others' perception of your property value is a 'direct effect'. Likewise, you've made arguments that indicate you believe government should dictate how we finance our health care because it might have a similar impact on your insurance premiums.

These are not "direct effects", or in any case they are not direct effects we should expect to be protected from. By this logic you could justify laws dictating my choice of which bread to buy because it might have an effect on the price of your favorite brand.

We didn't create government for the purpose of maintaining a static environment. We grant it power over us in order to protect us from bullies and thugs, not to insulate us from the general uncertainties of living in a pluralistic society.

 

[dblack]

LWC posted in his previous post:

If one is going to make a legislation that revokes relief to poor people, surely it is in everyone's best interests to help said poor people out of the hole they have dug themselves into, which is a good part of the reason they require the assistance in the first place.

In one sense I agree. It would be unconscionably and unjustifiably cruel to abruptly revoke Social Security and Mediare at the federal level after making millions of people dependent on these programs. . . but. . . .

We could begin now to slowly and carefuly back out of these programs at the federal level in small increments just as they have accrued and begin to privatize them.

Except for allocating tracts of unimproved land to homesteaders way back when, I can't think of any case in which government has relieved poverty to any significant degree by giving people stuff. I rather go with Ben Franklin's philosophy that we do people no kindness by making them easier in their poverty, but true compassion is leading or driving them out of it.

NO! NO! NO! A thousand times NO!

Privatizing Social Security is BAD! There is NO PROFIT to be made from it.

It would be better to put a time limit on it, saying that it will continue for so many years and then anyone born after that date will need this new privatized program weve come up with.

But taking the existing system and trying to turn a profit on it will never work.

Agreed. Efforts to "privatize" what were previously government services are often suspect and, when they result in granting "fiefdoms" to private industry, almost always a bad idea in my view. If we decide government doesn't need to be doing something, they should just stop doing it. Perhaps gradually, with plenty of public notice - but granting the controlling power of the state to private enterprise is a cure worse than the disease.

 

[Jackson]

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

It's about time we were all treated as true equals. This is what we have been striving for since the construction of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

 

[Artevelde]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

I understand where you're coming from, but I do see some problems.

First of all, I am on principle not a big fan of constitutional amendments. Let's make the Constitution work, instead of trying to tinker with it (even if with the best intentions).

Second, as it is written your proposal might have unintended consequences. Are we going to outlaw veteran's benefits? (they are a particular group too)