A Tale of Two Cows

[Sheldon]

Under the U.S. Constitution the reason that killing, theft, blackmail are illegal is not for any considerations of 'morality' in any capacity. The Founders were extremely careful not to base ANY component of the federal law via the Constitution on any basis of morality or virtue.

The reason killing, theft, blackmail are illegal is because they violate unalienable rights that the Constitution was designed to protect, such rights being the unalienable right to one's life and one's legally acquired property.

Riche honorably acquired his property and, according to the Constitution, an unalienable right to use it for his own purposes short of infringing on the unalienable rights of any other.

Please point to the Constitutional provision that authorizes the government to take property from Riche so that Pauvre may have it.

Can we quit with the pretense about cows?

The government has the authority under the general welfare clause coupled with the 16th Amendment, confirmed by the body of SCOTUS cases specifically post-FDR.

SCOTUS interprets existing law or it is supposed to. SCOTUS did not have the jurisdiction to approve or disapprove of welfare but rather whether equal protection applies in the application of welfare.

But are you saying there is no unalienable right to the property that one acquires by honorable, ethical, legal means? That the government or SCOTUS can decree that we must give up whatever the government decides that it needs in order to do whatever?

Does the government have all power to make those decisions?

If not, where do you draw the line?

It's just like all the other rights. They're not absolute, at least not imo or in the opinion of the Supremes. There is an arbitrary boundary drawn by the government that society elects.

Congress has the power to tax. And consent to that taxation is given by continuing to live and do business in this country.

And yes, government--we--have the power to make those decisions about the levels of taxation and how those funds are spent.

 

[Sheldon]

Ravi, I don't much feel like debating the origin of rights, at least not right now. This thread has already got me wanting to go vegetarian. But imo there's a reason those rights were recognized in the first place... because it's wrong to kill someone, and it wrong to steal from someone.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can we quit with the pretense about cows?

The government has the authority under the general welfare clause coupled with the 16th Amendment, confirmed by the body of SCOTUS cases specifically post-FDR.

SCOTUS interprets existing law or it is supposed to. SCOTUS did not have the jurisdiction to approve or disapprove of welfare but rather whether equal protection applies in the application of welfare.

But are you saying there is no unalienable right to the property that one acquires by honorable, ethical, legal means? That the government or SCOTUS can decree that we must give up whatever the government decides that it needs in order to do whatever?

Does the government have all power to make those decisions?

If not, where do you draw the line?

It's just like all the other rights. They're not absolute, at least not imo or in the opinion of the Supremes. There is an arbitrary boundary drawn by the government that society elects.

Congress has the power to tax. And consent to that taxation is given by continuing to live and do business in this country.

And yes, government--we--have the power to make those decisions about the levels of taxation and how those funds are spent.

And you don't see the Constitution as in any way limiting the choice of government to make decisions about the levels of taxation and how those funds are spent?

And if not, then what stops government from simply taking everything from everybody and reassigning it to whomever it wishes in whatever proportion it wishes?

And if you think government is not allowed to do that, then at what point is it NOT allowed to take as many of Riche's cows or as much of Riche's money as it wants?

 

[Sheldon]

SCOTUS interprets existing law or it is supposed to. SCOTUS did not have the jurisdiction to approve or disapprove of welfare but rather whether equal protection applies in the application of welfare.

But are you saying there is no unalienable right to the property that one acquires by honorable, ethical, legal means? That the government or SCOTUS can decree that we must give up whatever the government decides that it needs in order to do whatever?

Does the government have all power to make those decisions?

If not, where do you draw the line?

It's just like all the other rights. They're not absolute, at least not imo or in the opinion of the Supremes. There is an arbitrary boundary drawn by the government that society elects.

Congress has the power to tax. And consent to that taxation is given by continuing to live and do business in this country.

And yes, government--we--have the power to make those decisions about the levels of taxation and how those funds are spent.

And you don't see the Constitution as in any way limiting the choice of government to make decisions about the levels of taxation and how those funds are spent?

And if not, then what stops government from simply taking everything from everybody and reassigning it to whomever it wishes in whatever proportion it wishes?

And if you think government is not allowed to do that, then at what point is it NOT allowed to take as many of Riche's cows or as much of Riche's money as it wants?

Representative democracy. Look it up. If taxes get so draconian, the citizens will make it known and you'll see a cadre of politicians respond to this by campaigning on fixing the taxes. Sounds familiar.

The only restriction on taxation I see in the Constitution is that it must be for the general welfare or the common defense. They left the actual math up to the representatives.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's just like all the other rights. They're not absolute, at least not imo or in the opinion of the Supremes. There is an arbitrary boundary drawn by the government that society elects.

Congress has the power to tax. And consent to that taxation is given by continuing to live and do business in this country.

And yes, government--we--have the power to make those decisions about the levels of taxation and how those funds are spent.

And you don't see the Constitution as in any way limiting the choice of government to make decisions about the levels of taxation and how those funds are spent?

And if not, then what stops government from simply taking everything from everybody and reassigning it to whomever it wishes in whatever proportion it wishes?

And if you think government is not allowed to do that, then at what point is it NOT allowed to take as many of Riche's cows or as much of Riche's money as it wants?

Representative democracy. Look it up. If taxes get so draconian, the citizens will make it known and you'll see a cadre of politicians respond to this by campaigning on fixing the taxes. Sounds familiar.

The only restriction on taxation I see in the Constitution is that it must be for the general welfare or the common defense. They left the actual math up to the representatives.

General welfare meaning everybody equally without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation as opposed to individual welfare, yes. So if the Constitution does not authorize the government to take from Riche in order to benefit Pauvre, we are still looking for whatever principle or concept allows the government to do that.

 

[The Infidel]

If The person with more cows has more income, he will pay more in taxes. That is the way modern societies work

and if the EPA has any say.... you will pay for each and every cow fart too

 

[Sheldon]

And you don't see the Constitution as in any way limiting the choice of government to make decisions about the levels of taxation and how those funds are spent?

And if not, then what stops government from simply taking everything from everybody and reassigning it to whomever it wishes in whatever proportion it wishes?

And if you think government is not allowed to do that, then at what point is it NOT allowed to take as many of Riche's cows or as much of Riche's money as it wants?

Representative democracy. Look it up. If taxes get so draconian, the citizens will make it known and you'll see a cadre of politicians respond to this by campaigning on fixing the taxes. Sounds familiar.

The only restriction on taxation I see in the Constitution is that it must be for the general welfare or the common defense. They left the actual math up to the representatives.

General welfare meaning everybody equally without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation as opposed to individual welfare, yes. So if the Constitution does not authorize the government to take from Riche in order to benefit Pauvre, we are still looking for whatever principle or concept allows the government to do that.

"We" are?

 

[The Infidel]

If Walter E. Williams was the Governor, here's your answer:

Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God.

 

[The Infidel]

For the good of society, better herd management is the greater good. Mismanagement is its own reward and the fate of the cows in that herd already sealed.

Is that what our current gov't is trying to do.... herd us?

Well fuck that!

 

[Foxfyre]

Representative democracy. Look it up. If taxes get so draconian, the citizens will make it known and you'll see a cadre of politicians respond to this by campaigning on fixing the taxes. Sounds familiar.

The only restriction on taxation I see in the Constitution is that it must be for the general welfare or the common defense. They left the actual math up to the representatives.

General welfare meaning everybody equally without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation as opposed to individual welfare, yes. So if the Constitution does not authorize the government to take from Riche in order to benefit Pauvre, we are still looking for whatever principle or concept allows the government to do that.

"We" are?

A lot of us have been working the problem here despite my perception of those who want to rewrite or restate the problem so that they don't have to answer it or admit that they can't or admit that they won't because an honest answer would negate so much of their socioeconomic and political philosophy.

I think at least a few of those who have posted are focused on that principle. Whether you include yourself in the collective 'we' is your prerogative.

 

[Ravi]

And you don't see the Constitution as in any way limiting the choice of government to make decisions about the levels of taxation and how those funds are spent?

And if not, then what stops government from simply taking everything from everybody and reassigning it to whomever it wishes in whatever proportion it wishes?

And if you think government is not allowed to do that, then at what point is it NOT allowed to take as many of Riche's cows or as much of Riche's money as it wants?

Representative democracy. Look it up. If taxes get so draconian, the citizens will make it known and you'll see a cadre of politicians respond to this by campaigning on fixing the taxes. Sounds familiar.

The only restriction on taxation I see in the Constitution is that it must be for the general welfare or the common defense. They left the actual math up to the representatives.

General welfare meaning everybody equally without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation as opposed to individual welfare, yes. So if the Constitution does not authorize the government to take from Riche in order to benefit Pauvre, we are still looking for whatever principle or concept allows the government to do that.

There's no equality if people that own property or have children get a tax break while those that don't own property or have children don't.

 

[Anguille]

I think all the cows should unite and kick those pimps, Riche and Pauvre, to the curb.

 

[jillian]

General welfare meaning everybody equally without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation as opposed to individual welfare, yes. So if the Constitution does not authorize the government to take from Riche in order to benefit Pauvre, we are still looking for whatever principle or concept allows the government to do that.

there is no such restriction on the general welfare clause either in the constitution or in the cases construing the clause.... your mischaracterization notwithstanding.

 

[Foxfyre]

I tend to agree that there should be more equality in the tax code which is why I favor everybody paying a flat percentage above a personal exemption. To encourage home ownership and charitable deductions, both of which all can aspire to do and both of which contribute to the general welfare everywhere whether or not one engages in them, I would think it reasonable to continue to allow such deductions, but otherwise everybody, rich, poor, male, female, gay, straight, single, married, EVERYBODY pays the same percentage across the board.

 

[Foxfyre]

General welfare meaning everybody equally without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation as opposed to individual welfare, yes. So if the Constitution does not authorize the government to take from Riche in order to benefit Pauvre, we are still looking for whatever principle or concept allows the government to do that.

there is no such restriction on the general welfare clause either in the constitution or in the cases construing the clause.... your mischaracterization notwithstanding.

There is in the explanations the Founding Fathers left to us--all the rationale that went into the wording of the constitution. And every President, every legislature, and every Scotus read it that way until FDR. Once we started down the slippery slope of favoring one group over another, however, the snowball was started rolling until it has grown to the unsustainable monstrosity that it now is.

 

[jillian]

General welfare meaning everybody equally without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation as opposed to individual welfare, yes. So if the Constitution does not authorize the government to take from Riche in order to benefit Pauvre, we are still looking for whatever principle or concept allows the government to do that.

there is no such restriction on the general welfare clause either in the constitution or in the cases construing the clause.... your mischaracterization notwithstanding.

There is in the explanations the Founding Fathers left to us--all the rationale that went into the wording of the constitution. And every President, every legislature, and every Scotus read it that way until FDR. Once we started down the slippery slope of favoring one group over another, however, the snowball was started rolling until it has grown to the unsustainable monstrosity that it now is.

That isn't how the constitution is construed. You really should start looking at the caselaw. It's really important. Without it, there can't be any understanding of the document and what it allows, requires and prohibits.

start here:

Marbury v. Madison

you also seem to be imposing your own point of view on the document in a way that has no relationship to what the founders established.

the founders ALWAYS put one group over another. that is why only landed gentry could vote; that is why women could not vote; and that is why black's were 3/5 of a person.

do you think those things shoudl still be done today because the founders did them?

they were politicians and lawmakers like any other. their words are not gospel. nor are their musings enforceable as law. they didn't even agree among themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

there is no such restriction on the general welfare clause either in the constitution or in the cases construing the clause.... your mischaracterization notwithstanding.

There is in the explanations the Founding Fathers left to us--all the rationale that went into the wording of the constitution. And every President, every legislature, and every Scotus read it that way until FDR. Once we started down the slippery slope of favoring one group over another, however, the snowball was started rolling until it has grown to the unsustainable monstrosity that it now is.

That isn't how the constitution is construed. You really should start looking at the caselaw. It's really important. Without it, there can't be any understanding of the document and what it allows, requires and prohibits.

start here:

Marbury v. Madison

you also seem to be imposing your own point of view on the document in a way that has no relationship to what the founders established.

the founders ALWAYS put one group over another. that is why only landed gentry could vote; that is why women could not vote; and that is why black's were 3/5 of a person.

do you think those things shoudl still be done today because the founders did them?

they were politicians and lawmakers like any other. their words are not gospel. nor are their musings enforceable as law. they didn't even agree among themselves.

I'm usually up for case law in interpretation of the law. I am not interested in case law where the Founders are concerned. Issues of slaves and women were corrected in subsequent constitutional amendments. But the one unifying factor that almost ALL the Founders agreed on was that the people would govern themselves and the federal government would have no power other than to secure the rights of the people.

So of course if you believe one person has a right to the property of another, you will interpret the law one way. If you believe in original intent, you will not.

Would you say that the governor should take one or more of Riche's cows and give them to Pauvre?

 

[Ravi]

I tend to agree that there should be more equality in the tax code which is why I favor everybody paying a flat percentage above a personal exemption. To encourage home ownership and charitable deductions, both of which all can aspire to do and both of which contribute to the general welfare everywhere whether or not one engages in them, I would think it reasonable to continue to allow such deductions, but otherwise everybody, rich, poor, male, female, gay, straight, single, married, EVERYBODY pays the same percentage across the board.

Why would you give tax breaks to encourage behaviors? That is nothing more than social engineering.

 

[Foxfyre]

Home ownership has provided far more stability, less crime, better schools, and more prosperity wherever it is the norm. For that reason I can see that as contributing to the general welfare.

Charitable contributions likewise feed the poor, provide shelter for the homeless, and have provided many many benefits for many people who would have needlessly suffered without them. Churches, private charities, and benevolent societies also contribute to neighborhood stability, less crime, better schools, and more prosperity wherever they are the norm. For that reason I can see that as contributing to the general welfare.

I have no problem with tax deductions in both of these cases because I believe both do contribute to the general welfare and both apply without prejudice regardles of the socioeconomic status or political affliation of persons involved.

Remember both Riche and Pauvre had opportunity to become rich. Riche chose to do so. Pauvre chose not to do what was necessary to do so.

So I'm still looking for a reasoned rationale for why Pauvre should be entitled to Riche's cows or Riche's tax contributions or anything that Riche has.

 

[jillian]

There is in the explanations the Founding Fathers left to us--all the rationale that went into the wording of the constitution. And every President, every legislature, and every Scotus read it that way until FDR. Once we started down the slippery slope of favoring one group over another, however, the snowball was started rolling until it has grown to the unsustainable monstrosity that it now is.

That isn't how the constitution is construed. You really should start looking at the caselaw. It's really important. Without it, there can't be any understanding of the document and what it allows, requires and prohibits.

start here:

Marbury v. Madison

you also seem to be imposing your own point of view on the document in a way that has no relationship to what the founders established.

the founders ALWAYS put one group over another. that is why only landed gentry could vote; that is why women could not vote; and that is why black's were 3/5 of a person.

do you think those things shoudl still be done today because the founders did them?

they were politicians and lawmakers like any other. their words are not gospel. nor are their musings enforceable as law. they didn't even agree among themselves.

I'm usually up for case law in interpretation of the law. I am not interested in case law where the Founders are concerned. Issues of slaves and women were corrected in subsequent constitutional amendments. But the one unifying factor that almost ALL the Founders agreed on was that the people would govern themselves and the federal government would have no power other than to secure the rights of the people.

So of course if you believe one person has a right to the property of another, you will interpret the law one way. If you believe in original intent, you will not.

Would you say that the governor should take one or more of Riche's cows and give them to Pauvre?

well, you might not be "interested in case law" but the high court is. (at least til scalia trashes it totally).

it isn't about whether one person has the right to the property of another. you just would prefer that the laws be engineered to allow money to be diverted to the already wealthy and destroy the middle class.

i say this because a middle class only exists with the protection of government. otherwise we are a banana republic.

i don't choose to live that way.