An honest question for conservatives

[OODA_Loop]

How do we measure the welfare of the US, not individuals?

GDP, debt service, military necessitated actions / war, monetary strength, etc.

 

[Bfgrn]

What role(s) should a government play in our lives?

The federal government's role is detailed in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. We don't bother with the law of the land much anymore, but that's the role the federal government SHOULD play, in my opinion as well as that of those that founded the country.

State and local governments are free to play any role they like as long as their involvement does not infringe upon any individual's rights. One of those rights includes the right to move to another state.

You can only speak for you, not the founding fathers. The argument over the General Welfare clause have been going on since the founder's days.

Alexander Hamilton argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams.
wiki

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"...our rights come from nature and God, not from government."

Wrong.

Rights come from us, human beings. We created the concept, we define it.

where does the right to life for a tree or a rabbit come from......?

did the tree or the rabbit create the concept for themselves....or does it just exist in nature....?

All rights come from humans. They are something we thought up. Trees and rabbits have no need, awareness or any other connection to this human creation. Other life forms have all the rights we decide to attribute to them.

a tree has the inherent right to live and grow otherwise it would die....or never even come into being....

are you saying a human has less right than a tree......? that his right to life must depend upon the decision of another human being....?

 

[eflatminor]

What role(s) should a government play in our lives?

The federal government's role is detailed in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. We don't bother with the law of the land much anymore, but that's the role the federal government SHOULD play, in my opinion as well as that of those that founded the country.

State and local governments are free to play any role they like as long as their involvement does not infringe upon any individual's rights. One of those rights includes the right to move to another state.

You can only speak for you, not the founding fathers. The argument over the General Welfare clause have been going on since the founder's days.

Alexander Hamilton argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams.
wiki

Not even Hamilton, the biggest government advocate among the founders, would argue for anything close to the government meddling we have today. Not even close. Even a cursory reading of the founding documents makes this crystal clear.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Interesting point, OODA. Are you arguing that the welfare of the US is divorced from the welfare of its citizens?

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


Taxes, duties, imposts, excises, paying debts and providing for the common Defence are collective undertakings, not individual.

Not sure if I see your logic. Taxes are a collective undertaking; agreed because it's done by a collection of people from a collection of people. But can't general welfare be the same? A collection of people spending taxes for the welfare of a collection of people?

 

[FJO]

In 1956 I escaped Hungary after the Revolution. My dream was to come to the United States, but due to the racist and xenophobic law by Democratic governments of the past, the quota for Hungarians was filled by the time it was my turn. So, as a second choice I immigrated to Canada.

Through all the years, while I learned to love Canada, married a Canadian girl had children, I never lost my fascination for America.

In 1993 I joined a group of Presbyterians from Indianapolis on my trip to Homestead, FL to help after the devastation of Hurricane Andrew. I have since then joined them, returned for volunteering in Appalachia, Georgia and Missouri.

It was also my good luck to work in our company's head office in Akron, Ohio, on invitation, and on a fully paid expense account.

I was there, in Akron, when the hijacked planes hit the twin towers. I spent winters in the American South. I traveled the Interstate Highways from Boston to San Diego, from Seattle to Miami and in the process I had meals, I talked to Americans, I slept in all the contiguous lower 48 states. I also got hooked on American politics and American TV and I don't mean sit-coms.

That is more than most American can say.

Now, sadly, I must say that if Obama wins a re-election, I am not sure that I will ever be welcome in the States again.

 

[BluePhantom]

^

speaks to founders on a regular basis

Only speak? Jeez I pull out my Ouija board and commune with them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Webster's: "the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity." Not sure about subsidies, but it seems that unemployment and the rest help people do well in respect to happiness, well-being, and/or prosperity.

Provide for the General Welfare of the United States.

Not indivduals.

Got news for you Ooda, that particular thing you stated was not specified........

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Preamble to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you one of those Constitutional scholars who inserts words into it to change meanings to prove your point?

 

[wjmacguffin]

How do we measure the welfare of the US, not individuals?

GDP, debt service, military necessitated actions / war, monetary strength, etc.

What about disaster relief? What about federal laws against murder, theft, kidnapping, etc? Can the fed gov't be said to be doing its job well if GDP is up but homelessness is the US is rampant?

I'm not trying to take this to an extreme; I'm only mentioning this to clarify my understanding of your POV.

 

[del]

How are you defining 'a government'. We have a Constitution that outlines the role of federal government. Anything else should be left to the states.

I left that intentionally vague, as I'm hoping to learn more about theories and ideas than a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Perhaps another way to ask my question is, "What would the ideal government do?"

You could read Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. That pretty much describes what the ideal government is supposed to do.

so the ideal government has no executive nor judiciary branch?

interesting

makes that whole checks and balances thing kinda tough, though.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Not sure if I see your logic. Taxes are a collective undertaking; agreed because it's done by a collection of people from a collection of people. But can't general welfare be the same? A collection of people spending taxes for the welfare of a collection of people?

Taxes are collected for the general welfare of the US (collective), not the individuals general welfare.


Can be the same if you change the Constitution and it is ratified by the States.

 

[wjmacguffin]

In 1956 I escaped Hungary after the Revolution. My dream was to come to the United States, but due to the racist and xenophobic law by Democratic governments of the past,

Which laws are those again? Which Democrats pushed for immigration limits, and similarly, which Republicans did not?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I believe my signature points to where I stand on that issue.

Except that you lie.

You're not an anarchist, you promote authoritarian government, and you sure the fuck aren't a capitalist, you are in fact a communist.

In short, you're a Chomskyite and too fucking stupid to grasp what it is you promote.

 

[there4eyeM]

a tree has the inherent right to live and grow otherwise it would die....or never even come into being....

are you saying a human has less right than a tree......? that his right to life must depend upon the decision of another human being....?[/QUOTE]

This indicates a very strange understanding of the word 'right'. Capacity would be closer to what you are saying.

Only humans have rights, so of course a human cannot have fewer rights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's not straightforward. The Constitution gives the Feds the power to promote the "general welfare".

No, it certainly does not. The preamble denotes that the enumerated powers granted are for the PURPOSE of promoting the general well being, the welfare, of the citizens.

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

This is the PURPOSE for the constitution, not the powers. The powers are enumerated after this.

What should that entail? Is there any limit to the amount the Feds can borrow under the enumerated powers? Regulating foreign trade--does that mean embargo, tariffs, and/or IP treaties?

There is no established limit to borrowing, Most thought the people would demand that the leaders be frugal with the peoples funds, others knew that the public treasury would be used to buy votes, as Obama does.

Wow. I ask for your point of view and you respond by questioning my patriotism/nationalism. Way to represent conservatives!

The answer to your question is that conservatives support the government established by the Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

i'll let you know when i take anyone here seriously

srsly

What a coincidence; no one here takes you seriously either....

 

[Uncensored2008]

All rights come from humans. They are something we thought up. Trees and rabbits have no need, awareness or any other connection to this human creation. Other life forms have all the rights we decide to attribute to them.

What a steaming pile.

Tell me, who on a deserted isle will stop one from heating their hut more than 68°?

Rights are inherent - rulers can only infringe, not grant, rights.

 

[there4eyeM]

All rights come from humans. They are something we thought up. Trees and rabbits have no need, awareness or any other connection to this human creation. Other life forms have all the rights we decide to attribute to them.

What a steaming pile.

Tell me, who on a deserted isle will stop one from heating their hut more than 68°?

Rights are inherent - rulers can only infringe, not grant, rights.

Steaming piles are mostly composed of false assumptions, like that anything was said about 'rulers'.
We are talking about language here, not religion or political philosophy.

 

[del]

i'll let you know when i take anyone here seriously

srsly

What a coincidence; no one here takes you seriously either....

except you

 

[ScreamingEagle]

a tree has the inherent right to live and grow otherwise it would die....or never even come into being....

are you saying a human has less right than a tree......? that his right to life must depend upon the decision of another human being....?

This indicates a very strange understanding of the word 'right'. Capacity would be closer to what you are saying.

Only humans have rights, so of course a human cannot have fewer rights.

capacity of the instinct for life exists in all life forms....what makes that life a "right" for humans and not for other living things...?

all kinds of living things have been around a whole lot longer than humans....