The Business of Government is to Promote Happiness or Business?

The problem with assigning government the task of "promoting the general welfare" (or happiness, or health, or whatever goodies people might want) is that it must first decide, for us, what constitutes our general welfare.

If we are not happy with what they decide, we get to vote them out

That doesn't address the problem at all. The problem isn't that the majority might be unhappy with the decision. The problem is that we all have our own definition of the good life. And government should protect our freedom to pursue that vision, rather than dictating what it should be.

The Government represents us. They do as much or as little as we want

If We the People are not happy with their choices, we vote them out

It has happened tens of thousands of times


thats true, but many times the damage is already done. the better solution is to elect people who understand what this country stands for------------------and its not socialism, winger/jake.
 
No, defense means to defend our borders and Americans from foreign threats.
Defense from threats foreign and domestic, actually. The epidemic of mortgage fraud that nearly crashed the global economy six years ago is a greater threat to this country than radical Islam ever will be. The current gap between the richest Americans and the majority also qualifies as a crisis for all those not lost like naive trolls in the 18th century.


What??? are you a complete idiot? How many people did mortgage fraud kill?

Boy George is just pointing out that when the founding fathers gave the Federal government the power of "defense," they obviously meant that people need to be protected from a Federal government who isn't caring for them. Doesn't that make sense to you, redfish?
 
The problem with assigning government the task of "promoting the general welfare" (or happiness, or health, or whatever goodies people might want) is that it must first decide, for us, what constitutes our general welfare.

If we are not happy with what they decide, we get to vote them out

That doesn't address the problem at all. The problem isn't that the majority might be unhappy with the decision. The problem is that we all have our own definition of the good life. And government should protect our freedom to pursue that vision, rather than dictating what it should be.

The Government represents us. They do as much or as little as we want

If We the People are not happy with their choices, we vote them out

It has happened tens of thousands of times


thats true, but many times the damage is already done. the better solution is to elect people who understand what this country stands for------------------and its not socialism, winger/jake.
Define socialism

To you....socialism is any time the government does anything to help the people
 
Not that stock ownership is the only form of investment they hold but 52% of American households own stocks as part or all of their portfolios. They all benefit from the growth and profitability of the companies in which they invest. You just whine like a stuck leftist because you never bothered to become one of the 52%.
The richest 1% of Americans make up the executive elites and sit on the boards of US multinationals where they reap 90% of the stock market income. That explains why 90% of economic gains since the end of the Great Recession accrued to 1% of earners. The 52% you bleat about are other useful sheep kept for shearing and political cover.
 
No, defense means to defend our borders and Americans from foreign threats.
Defense from threats foreign and domestic, actually. The epidemic of mortgage fraud that nearly crashed the global economy six years ago is a greater threat to this country than radical Islam ever will be. The current gap between the richest Americans and the majority also qualifies as a crisis for all those not lost like naive trolls in the 18th century.


What??? are you a complete idiot? How many people did mortgage fraud kill?

Boy George is just pointing out that when the founding fathers gave the Federal government the power of "defense," they obviously meant that people need to be protected from a Federal government who isn't caring for them. Doesn't that make sense to you, redfish?
Come on. George started an actual thread that is based upon a classical economic/social/govt philosophy. He hardly deserves to be pilloried here. Personally, I believe the founders were clearly in the Adam Smith camp of natural rights of ownership, and people acting in self interest. HOWEVER, there's no doubt they also were primarily influenced by John Locke in terms of libertarian economics, and part of his thought was people would act virtuously (hard work sobriety blah blah) because they wanted their neighbors to think well of them. And that view is not totally hostile to the notion that society should reward those acts that convey the most benefit to society at large.
 
Not that stock ownership is the only form of investment they hold but 52% of American households own stocks as part or all of their portfolios. They all benefit from the growth and profitability of the companies in which they invest. You just whine like a stuck leftist because you never bothered to become one of the 52%.
The richest 1% of Americans make up the executive elites and sit on the boards of US multinationals where they reap 90% of the stock market income. That explains why 90% of economic gains since the end of the Great Recession accrued to 1% of earners. The 52% you bleat about are other useful sheep kept for shearing and political cover.
Not necessarily. It may also be from the lack of a progressive voice. The middle class is at least as distrustful of the notion that we should just "give" every min wage worker a hike and free community college for everyone, as they are of people like Woody Johnson ... or Mitt Romney.

The issue might be that the vast majority believes the current system does not adequately reward hard work, but neither party represents them in that belief.
 
How do you prosecute someone that the former administration let do the damage?
The statute of limitations on mortgage fraud was just beginning to tick when Obama and Holder took over. Obama made the choice to include Bush "regulators" like Timothy Geithner in his Cabinet instead of investigating who was responsible for the "epidemic of mortgage fraud" the FBI began warning about in 2004.
 
The issue might be that the vast majority believes the current system does not adequately reward hard work, but neither party represents them in that belief.
What about the possibility the current economic system of finance capitalism simply can't create enough US jobs that pay enough for its workers to exist on?
 
No, defense means to defend our borders and Americans from foreign threats.
Defense from threats foreign and domestic, actually. The epidemic of mortgage fraud that nearly crashed the global economy six years ago is a greater threat to this country than radical Islam ever will be. The current gap between the richest Americans and the majority also qualifies as a crisis for all those not lost like naive trolls in the 18th century.


What??? are you a complete idiot? How many people did mortgage fraud kill?

Boy George is just pointing out that when the founding fathers gave the Federal government the power of "defense," they obviously meant that people need to be protected from a Federal government who isn't caring for them. Doesn't that make sense to you, redfish?
Come on. George started an actual thread that is based upon a classical economic/social/govt philosophy. He hardly deserves to be pilloried here. Personally, I believe the founders were clearly in the Adam Smith camp of natural rights of ownership, and people acting in self interest. HOWEVER, there's no doubt they also were primarily influenced by John Locke in terms of libertarian economics, and part of his thought was people would act virtuously (hard work sobriety blah blah) because they wanted their neighbors to think well of them. And that view is not totally hostile to the notion that society should reward those acts that convey the most benefit to society at large.

I don't think you read enough of the discussion. What Georgie is arguing is that socialist government, specifically in this case controlling financial services and using global warming to control the economy can be justified under the Constitutional authority given to the Federal government for "defense." That is categorically preposterous.
 
Come on. George started an actual thread that is based upon a classical economic/social/govt philosophy. He hardly deserves to be pilloried here. Personally, I believe the f
I actually gave that one a shot in an earlier thread which I hoped to link to the following Coursera offering.
Coursera - Free Online Courses From Top Universities
That thread disappeared after a few responses, but it still seems viable to me.
 
Not that stock ownership is the only form of investment they hold but 52% of American households own stocks as part or all of their portfolios. They all benefit from the growth and profitability of the companies in which they invest. You just whine like a stuck leftist because you never bothered to become one of the 52%.
The richest 1% of Americans make up the executive elites and sit on the boards of US multinationals where they reap 90% of the stock market income. That explains why 90% of economic gains since the end of the Great Recession accrued to 1% of earners. The 52% you bleat about are other useful sheep kept for shearing and political cover.

Those who have the most invested have the most at risk and reap the most rewards. Do you have anything which supports your "richest 1% of Americans ... reap 90% of stock market income?" BTW, any money you invested in the market in January, 2009 has not only paid dividends but has appreciated in value by 150%. Not bad for 6 years, eh? I see why people like you are sooooo jealous. Would you like some cheese with your whine? A bit of whine music, perhaps?
:boohoo::boohoo::boohoo:
 
Last edited:
The issue might be that the vast majority believes the current system does not adequately reward hard work, but neither party represents them in that belief.
What about the possibility the current economic system of finance capitalism simply can't create enough US jobs that pay enough for its workers to exist on?
How did all the jobs exist without government before? Capitalism doesn't create the jobs, the jobs create capitalism. The bigger government is the fewer there are participating in the private sector.

There is no finite amount of wealth or money, I don't know why liberals think that. This nation got wealthier how? By government passing legislation on wealth creation?
 
The Government represents us. They do as much or as little as we want
If We the People are not happy with their choices, we vote them out
It has happened tens of thousands of times

And like any good socialist, to GP that means gov't confiscation of private wealth to be redistributed to him. Over time it becomes increasingly difficult to just vote out socialism. See: Greece.
Here is where we seem to be headed:
INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
 
Last edited:
Socialism is justified under the Constitutional power of defense. Every time I think that I can't think liberals are any more stupid than I already think they are, they prove me wrong. And not by a little, by a lot. It is their one truly exceptional ability.
Socialism is justified under the Constitutional power of defense. Every time I think that I can't think liberals are any more stupid than I already think they are, they prove me wrong. And not by a little, by a lot. It is their one truly exceptional ability.
I thought you were bailing on this argument, at least long enough to provide your definition of "socialism?"
 
The issue might be that the vast majority believes the current system does not adequately reward hard work, but neither party represents them in that belief.
What about the possibility the current economic system of finance capitalism simply can't create enough US jobs that pay enough for its workers to exist on?
How did all the jobs exist without government before? Capitalism doesn't create the jobs, the jobs create capitalism. The bigger government is the fewer there are participating in the private sector.

There is no finite amount of wealth or money, I don't know why liberals think that. This nation got wealthier how? By government passing legislation on wealth creation?
Where or when did capitalism ever exist without government?
 
How did all the jobs exist without government before? Capitalism doesn't create the jobs, the jobs create capitalism.
Capitalism places the means of production, including labor, in the hands of private individuals who then become rich enough to bribe corrupt politicians for trade policies that decimate the society of workers who made the capitalists rich in the first place. Every time marginal tax rates fall below 50% the richest of the rich stop investing in job production and begin gambling on Wall Street's casino; that's the point government should step in and fund jobs to repair vital infrastructure by taxing the greedy gamblers.
 
How did all the jobs exist without government before? Capitalism doesn't create the jobs, the jobs create capitalism.
Capitalism places the means of production, including labor, in the hands of private individuals who then become rich enough to bribe corrupt politicians for trade policies that decimate the society of workers who made the capitalists rich in the first place. Every time marginal tax rates fall below 50% the richest of the rich stop investing in job production and begin gambling on Wall Street's casino; that's the point government should step in and fund jobs to repair vital infrastructure by taxing the greedy gamblers.
Wow, you just repeat the same stupid shit over and over and over. You have not got a fucking clue about how capitalism works, that's very apparent.
 
NEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
Too late:
"We should thank delightful Rep. Louie Gohmert, in a way, for bringing this post-Tucson spree of hastily conceived legislative proposals to its natural conclusion: He's drafting a bill that allows members of Congress to carry guns on the House floor."
Dumbest Congress Member Wants Guns on the House Floor
 
What??? are you a complete idiot? How many people did mortgage fraud kill?
There are threats to society other than homicide. The epidemic of mortgage fraud that crashed the global economy in 2008 cost millions of innocent Americans their jobs, homes, and their savings. Radical Islam is largely a creation of the US, and, not unlike mortgage backed securities, it serves the same 1% of American parasites.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top