A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[Foxfyre]

The New Emancipation Proclamation is my, and I hope a lot of other people's, declaration that we the people will be freed from a corrupt and ever more manipulative and oppressive government.

You don't see where equating our need to rein in the overreach of government spending and entitlement programs with the actual condition of slavery is wildly inappropriate? That is taking emoting way, way too far.

Your opinion is noted. And again I refer you to the separate discussion on what is and what isn't offensive.

The last time I looked up the definition, 'slavery' is restriction of freedom coupled with involuntary servitude to another. It really doesn't matter what the motives are or how nicely it is dressed up, it is slavery nonetheless.

If you choose to discuss why the government confiscating what I earn and using it to benefit others, most especially when it also benefits those dispensing the money, is not a form of slavery, I would be interested in hearing it.

I am not interested in getting into a side issue of semantics.

 

[Vidi]

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?

I think that you have a distiorted view of the first 150 years of our countries existence. At NO time in our history did laws effect everyone equally. There have ALWAYS been winners and losers in every decision made by government. Thats just the nature of the beast.

Sure, we may have a conceptual ideal that we hope will guide us, but practical application will always fall far short of that ideal. By placing that ideal into the Constitution, in the manner in which you suggest, youre advocating for a socialist or communist government in which the government redistributes all resources equally.

 

[Vidi]

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.

In theory.

But with limited resources available, every President must decide priority. It is through that priority that a President can put enforcment of certain laws so far back on the list that they essentially become non existant.

 

[Vidi]

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).

To the absolutel shock of EVERYONE, SCOTUS has deemed it Constitutional. The system has decided against your statement.

 

[Unkotare]

The New Emancipation Proclamation is my, and I hope a lot of other people's, declaration that we the people will be freed from a corrupt and ever more manipulative and oppressive government.

You don't see where equating our need to rein in the overreach of government spending and entitlement programs with the actual condition of slavery is wildly inappropriate? That is taking emoting way, way too far.

Your opinion is noted. And again I refer you to the separate discussion on what is and what isn't offensive.

The last time I looked up the definition, 'slavery' is restriction of freedom coupled with involuntary servitude to another. It really doesn't matter what the motives are or how nicely it is dressed up, it is slavery nonetheless.

If you choose to discuss why the government confiscating what I earn and using it to benefit others, most especially when it also benefits those dispensing the money, is not a form of slavery, I would be interested in hearing it.

I am not interested in getting into a side issue of semantics.

You would seem to have ensured that it would come up when you chose the name of your 'resolution.' To equate, in any way, government overreach and excessive taxation unwisely spent (though certainly that is serious) with the actual horrors of slavery that actual human beings suffered day in and day out for centuries in this country is beyond outrageous. To diminish such unspeakable human suffering in this way is far more than merely inappropriate.

 

[Vidi]

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.

I agree we didnt create government to maintain a static environment. We created government to create a stable enviorment. Government has NO OTHER PURPOSE than that.

Every law, every regulation, every amendment to the Constitution should be passed ONLY to promote stability.

Unneccesary and foolish risk promotes instability that places the innocent at risk though no fault of their own.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

I think that you have a distiorted view of the first 150 years of our countries existence. At NO time in our history did laws effect everyone equally. There have ALWAYS been winners and losers in every decision made by government. Thats just the nature of the beast.

Sure, we may have a conceptual ideal that we hope will guide us, but practical application will always fall far short of that ideal. By placing that ideal into the Constitution, in the manner in which you suggest, youre advocating for a socialist or communist government in which the government redistributes all resources equally.

But let's focus here. The resolution does not address most laws that the federal government would pass. It does not address federal guidelines for the proper handling of foodstuffs or what hours the Post Office will be open or regulation of shared air space, surface water, etc.

The resolution is focused only on restricting the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do and, to make sure there are no loopholes as some courts have seen in the general welfare clause, it will prohibit the federal government from collecting taxes from any citizen for the exclusive benefit of any other citizen, group, demographic, entity, etc.

 

[Foxfyre]

Quick aside: It's senior ctiizen discount day at Albertson's and I'm off to the grocery store. Back later.

 

[Vidi]

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.

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?

However distressing and unfortunate this situation may be, the only remedy for this situation is for the federal government to stay out of it EXCEPT for requirements of sound money management by the banks. That means the government no longer bullies, threatens, or coerces banks into making risky loans to 'poor' people but insists that the banks return to sound lending practices. Home loans will be made to people who save up for a down payment, who are responsible to pay their debts on time, and who earn enough money to realistically be able to pay their mortgages.

People who have worked hard and developed the discipline to save and have a substantial investment in their homes, as well as having demonstrated the integrity of being honorable in paying their debts are not going to default on their mortgage except in very rare and unusual circumstances..

People who have little or no investment in their homes and little or no credit rating to protect are far more likely to not care if they default on their loans because they don't have anything to lose, most especially if they know the federal goverment may bail them out if they get into trouble.

You do understand that it wasnt the bad loans that brought down the economy right? It was the securitizing them and reselling that did it.

In fact, the loans themselves were toxic only because of the manner in which they were set up.

think about it.

The government said Hey if you give loans to these questionable borrowers, we will insure the loans so you get your money no matter what." BUT the goevrnment did not dicate what the terms of the loans were. So the banks jumped in with the subprime category and pushed as many people into BAD loans, loans the bank KNEW could NEVER be paid off unless someone won the lottery.

But heres the rub:

A Sub Prime loan meant the bank was taking more risk by lending to someone with less than stellar credit. We often hear that these people had no business getting the loans they were getting. BUT...the reality is the bank took NO RISK at all by giving out those loans because if the borrower paid it off, they made money. If they didnt, the government paid, and the banks made money. There was NO WAY for the banks to lose.

So the structures of sub prime loans, structured for five years instead of 30, or mortgage payments that doubled or even tripled after trhee to five years, were specifically designed for the borrower to be forced into another loan within a few years. This was accepted because house prices were rising and the house itself should have been more valueable a few years down the road and thus given the borrower equity in the hosue itself.

But like I said the banks assumed NO RISK AT ALL. So the structures of the laons should have been BETTER than those of people who didnt fall into the subprime category. They should have favored the comsumer MORE. And because they didnt, tehy were set up to fail by the banks.

Why? because when a borrower is forced to refinance repeatedly, they are never an owner ALWAYS a rented and the bank has now taken ownership of the house without any of the responsibilities of a landlord.

It was the perfect scam.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes Vidi, I have debated the 2008 crash for hours and hours and hours now as well as help coach a debate team in a formal debate on that subject. And it is an interesting subject but unfortunately will derail this thread if we get into it.

So lets just accept a general consensus that a responsible federal government exercises responsible regulation and oversight of banks using federal money, our government seriously let us down in that regard that created the 2008 crash, and maybe the resolution as written will help us put true public servants back into government to replace those who have little or no interest in actually solving problems.

 

[Vidi]

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?

I think that you have a distiorted view of the first 150 years of our countries existence. At NO time in our history did laws effect everyone equally. There have ALWAYS been winners and losers in every decision made by government. Thats just the nature of the beast.

Sure, we may have a conceptual ideal that we hope will guide us, but practical application will always fall far short of that ideal. By placing that ideal into the Constitution, in the manner in which you suggest, youre advocating for a socialist or communist government in which the government redistributes all resources equally.

But let's focus here. The resolution does not address most laws that the federal government would pass. It does not address federal guidelines for the proper handling of foodstuffs or what hours the Post Office will be open or regulation of shared air space, surface water, etc.

The resolution is focused only on restricting the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do and, to make sure there are no loopholes as some courts have seen in the general welfare clause, it will prohibit the federal government from collecting taxes from any citizen for the exclusive benefit of any other citizen, group, demographic, entity, etc.

I think you need to reread your resolution.

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.

EVERY LAW bestows a form of benevolence or benefit to SOMEONE. It must or its meaningless.

So your resolution would effect EVERY LAW passed, past, present and future, forcing the government into either complete and total inaction, or into a purely communist state.




Oh and show me a tax thats collected for the "exclusive" benefit of another group of people. You see, its that word exclusive you put in there that damns your statement. It can be argued that food stamps and welfare are to the benefit of the rich. After all, it heps prevent food riots doesnt it? It helps to prevent large scale uprisings where "let them eat cake." isnt going to stop the angry mob at the gate, doesnt it?

Its far too easy to argue benefit and benevolence and end up with a society that looks NOTHING like what the Founders envisioned.

Sorry, Fox, I appreciate what your trying to accomplish, but THAT particular resolution is a communist manifesto.

 

[Vidi]

Yes Vidi, I have debated the 2008 crash for hours and hours and hours now as well as help coach a debate team in a formal debate on that subject. And it is an interesting subject but unfortunately will derail this thread if we get into it.

So lets just accept a general consensus that a responsible federal government exercises responsible regulation and oversight of banks using federal money, our government seriously let us down in that regard that created the 2008 crash, and maybe the resolution as written will help us put true public servants back into government to replace those who have little or no interest in actually solving problems.

fair enough. I apologize. It was not my intention to derail.

 

[Unkotare]

maybe the resolution as written will help us put true public servants back into government to replace those who have little or no interest in actually solving problems.

Just out of curiosity, do you actually expect that anything posted here will have any impact on the world outside this forum?

 

[Foxfyre]

You don't see where equating our need to rein in the overreach of government spending and entitlement programs with the actual condition of slavery is wildly inappropriate? That is taking emoting way, way too far.

Your opinion is noted. And again I refer you to the separate discussion on what is and what isn't offensive.

The last time I looked up the definition, 'slavery' is restriction of freedom coupled with involuntary servitude to another. It really doesn't matter what the motives are or how nicely it is dressed up, it is slavery nonetheless.

If you choose to discuss why the government confiscating what I earn and using it to benefit others, most especially when it also benefits those dispensing the money, is not a form of slavery, I would be interested in hearing it.

I am not interested in getting into a side issue of semantics.

You would seem to have ensured that it would come up when you chose the name of your 'resolution.' To equate, in any way, government overreach and excessive taxation unwisely spent (though certainly that is serious) with the actual horrors of slavery that actual human beings suffered day in and day out for centuries in this country is beyond outrageous. To diminish such unspeakable human suffering in this way is far more than merely inappropriate.

I've already noted that you have a problem with the name of the resolution. I have given my rationale for it and you either accept that or you don't. If you believe it is offensively inappropriate then report it and me and let the mods handle it. If it bothers you too much to concentrate on anything else, again I point you to a very large, diverse world out there beyond the CDZ where you can criticize me and my thread with impunity and characterize it any way you wish.

Otherwise, I will again respectfully request that you focus on the content and purpose of the resolution and will thank you for your courtesy and consideration.

 

[dblack]

I think that you have a distiorted view of the first 150 years of our countries existence. At NO time in our history did laws effect everyone equally. There have ALWAYS been winners and losers in every decision made by government. Thats just the nature of the beast.

I think you're missing the point. Sure, laws will affect different people differently. But currently we deliberately write laws to reward some and punish others, and that should never be the intent. The intent ought to be equal rights under the law. Indulging the urge to use the government to hand out favors corrupts egalitarian government and encourages corporatism.

I think the Foxfyre's "manifesto" is a move in the right direction. We should condemn government that plays favorites and promote equal treatment under the law. Even if that goal present challenges in its practical implementation.

The one thing I'd like to see highlighted more is the practice of using the tax code as the principal tool in effecting unequal treatment. As Justice Roberts and PPACA have shown us, the government doesn't need specific authority to dictate behavior when it can use discriminatory taxation to achieve the same ends. That practice, more than any other, needs to end.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think that you have a distiorted view of the first 150 years of our countries existence. At NO time in our history did laws effect everyone equally. There have ALWAYS been winners and losers in every decision made by government. Thats just the nature of the beast.

Sure, we may have a conceptual ideal that we hope will guide us, but practical application will always fall far short of that ideal. By placing that ideal into the Constitution, in the manner in which you suggest, youre advocating for a socialist or communist government in which the government redistributes all resources equally.

But let's focus here. The resolution does not address most laws that the federal government would pass. It does not address federal guidelines for the proper handling of foodstuffs or what hours the Post Office will be open or regulation of shared air space, surface water, etc.

The resolution is focused only on restricting the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do and, to make sure there are no loopholes as some courts have seen in the general welfare clause, it will prohibit the federal government from collecting taxes from any citizen for the exclusive benefit of any other citizen, group, demographic, entity, etc.

I think you need to reread your resolution.

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.

EVERY LAW bestows a form of benevolence or benefit to SOMEONE. It must or its meaningless.

So your resolution would effect EVERY LAW passed, past, present and future, forcing the government into either complete and total inaction, or into a purely communist state.




Oh and show me a tax thats collected for the "exclusive" benefit of another group of people. You see, its that word exclusive you put in there that damns your statement. It can be argued that food stamps and welfare are to the benefit of the rich. After all, it heps prevent food riots doesnt it? It helps to prevent large scale uprisings where "let them eat cake." isnt going to stop the angry mob at the gate, doesnt it?

Its far too easy to argue benefit and benevolence and end up with a society that looks NOTHING like what the Founders envisioned.

Sorry, Fox, I appreciate what your trying to accomplish, but THAT particular resolution is a communist manifesto.

No Vidi, I see a distinct difference between 'benefit' or 'benevolence' to targeted individuals, groups, entities, demographics etc. and benefit as is intended in the general welfare.

The Interstate Highways system for instance was conceived to improve our defense capabilities should somebody get a wild hair and directly attack us. But it has absolutely promoted the general welfare also as it has been developed partially on a per capita basis but mostly on an orderly grid useful to anybody and everybody who wishes to travel from one part of the country to another. Also every man, woman, and child, without respect to their political affliation, socioeconomic status, race, religion or whatever benefits from the Interstate system. There is no way to make a case that it benefits any targeted group more than any other. It is absolutely what the Founders had in mind with the general welfare clause.

So maybe everybody won't benefit equally from every law, but there is a huge difference between that and targeting one group for a benefit that others won't share in but will be expected to pay for.

 

[Unkotare]

I've already noted that you have a problem with the name of the resolution.

You've got it backwards. The problem lies not with me, but with the name of the 'resolution' itself. If you can't justify diminishing the suffering of those who labored under actual slavery, you should think of another name. I've also pointed out that the name doesn't work on another level as well, since the real Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order and not a make-believe 'resolution.' This is a point that bears consideration.

 

[Vidi]

I think that you have a distiorted view of the first 150 years of our countries existence. At NO time in our history did laws effect everyone equally. There have ALWAYS been winners and losers in every decision made by government. Thats just the nature of the beast.

I think you're missing the point. Sure, laws will affect different people differently. But currently we deliberately write laws to reward some and punish others, and that should never be the intent. The intent ought to be equal rights under the law. Indulging the urge to use the government to hand out favors corrupts egalitarian government and encourages corporatism.

I think the Foxfyre's "manifesto" is a move in the right direction. We should condemn government that plays favorites and promote equal treatment under the law. Even if that goal present challenges in its practical implementation.

The one thing I'd like to see highlighted more is the practice of using the tax code as the principal tool in effecting unequal treatment. As Justice Roberts and PPACA have shown us, the government doesn't need specific authority to dictate behavior when it can use discriminatory taxation to achieve the same ends. That practice, more than any other, needs to end.

The 14th amendment calls for equal protection under the law. That is the closest we will ever get to true equality.

The resolution as stated says that NO LAW may be passed giving benefit to one group without giving benefit to ALL groups. That is an impossibility because of the very nature of laws. ALL LAWS are made to correct an imbalance in the system. They specifically pick winners and losers because they are created to correct an injustice of some kind.

Foxfyres resolution is an impossibility because it ignores completely the very nature of laws and why they are made. If however the goal is equal protection under the law, then Foxfyres resolution is redundant as the 14th amendment already provides for that protection.

Therefore, I fully oppose Foxfyres resolution 100% as being both unworkable at worst and redundant at best.

 

[Vidi]

I've already noted that you have a problem with the name of the resolution.

You've got it backwards. The problem lies not with me, but with the name of the 'resolution' itself. If you can't justify diminishing the suffering of those who labored under actual slavery, you should think of another name. I've also pointed out that the name doesn't work on another level as well, since the real Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order and not a make-believe 'resolution.' This is a point that bears consideration.

YOU have a problem with the name of the resolution. We get it. The REST of us are actually discussing the resolution on the merits of its contents. Would you like to join us in that discussion or continue to Foxfyre over her poor name choice?

 

[Vidi]

But let's focus here. The resolution does not address most laws that the federal government would pass. It does not address federal guidelines for the proper handling of foodstuffs or what hours the Post Office will be open or regulation of shared air space, surface water, etc.

The resolution is focused only on restricting the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do and, to make sure there are no loopholes as some courts have seen in the general welfare clause, it will prohibit the federal government from collecting taxes from any citizen for the exclusive benefit of any other citizen, group, demographic, entity, etc.

I think you need to reread your resolution.

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.

EVERY LAW bestows a form of benevolence or benefit to SOMEONE. It must or its meaningless.

So your resolution would effect EVERY LAW passed, past, present and future, forcing the government into either complete and total inaction, or into a purely communist state.




Oh and show me a tax thats collected for the "exclusive" benefit of another group of people. You see, its that word exclusive you put in there that damns your statement. It can be argued that food stamps and welfare are to the benefit of the rich. After all, it heps prevent food riots doesnt it? It helps to prevent large scale uprisings where "let them eat cake." isnt going to stop the angry mob at the gate, doesnt it?

Its far too easy to argue benefit and benevolence and end up with a society that looks NOTHING like what the Founders envisioned.

Sorry, Fox, I appreciate what your trying to accomplish, but THAT particular resolution is a communist manifesto.

No Vidi, I see a distinct difference between 'benefit' or 'benevolence' to targeted individuals, groups, entities, demographics etc. and benefit as is intended in the general welfare.

The Interstate Highways system for instance was conceived to improve our defense capabilities should somebody get a wild hair and directly attack us. But it has absolutely promoted the general welfare also as it has been developed partially on a per capita basis but mostly on an orderly grid useful to anybody and everybody who wishes to travel from one part of the country to another. Also every man, woman, and child, without respect to their political affliation, socioeconomic status, race, religion or whatever benefits from the Interstate system. There is no way to make a case that it benefits any targeted group more than any other. It is absolutely what the Founders had in mind with the general welfare clause.

So maybe everybody won't benefit equally from every law, but there is a huge difference between that and targeting one group for a benefit that others won't share in but will be expected to pay for.

good example! The highway system! Lets use that.


Awesomeville and Smellslikefeetburg were both small towns in Iowa ( names are fictional ) when highway 80 was constructed.

The interstate went less than a mile from Smellslikefeetburg while Awesomeville was 30 miles away. The commerce that came with the interstate, the easy access to trade routes made Smellslikefeetburg grow to a thriving city, while Awesomeville's economy moved slowly and even contracted when businesses ( wanting to be closer to the interstate ) moved to Smellslikefeetburg.

So the Interstate highway system picked winners and losers. It gave benefit top some while punishing others.

Your resolution REQUIRES that benefit be givern to ALL groups equally, which is impossible.