Two cultures: Hunters and Gatherers vs Free Stuff

[DiamondDave]

Please show in the constitution where case law is to be used to judge constitutional intent... is that the same place where the judicial branch has the power to legislate from the bench??

Just because persons or branches of a power hungry government do things to grab more power and try and make it sound justified, does not make it justified... the powers granted are very specific...

More specifically, I would like somebody to show me where it says in the Constitution that it is the right of any citizen to be provided any product or service by others.

I would like for anybody to explain a rationale for how it does not violate my rights to confiscate what I lawfully earned or acquired and give it to somebody else.

Unless (the generic) you want to say that the courts are infallible and determine what is right and wrong, in which case you would have to say that it was right and just to own slaves and practice segregation both of which previous Supreme Courts have upheld, let's take the courts out of this and reason together.

The government doesn't "confiscate" anything. It's part of the social pact..you pay in..and you get benefits..you don't like it?

Islands for Sale, Private Islands, Luxury Real Estate

Feel free.

Where is that power granted? Plain and simple... Your 'social pact' is not a constitutionally granted power...

jesus.. the entitlement junkie just never stops

 

[Foxfyre]

You really have some very wrong ideas about what the Founding Fathers thought, wrote, or promoted. I suggest that you spend some time reading some of their writings--ALL of their writings and not selected sound bites from leftist websites.

Now please re-read the OP and try really hard and I bet you can understand the thesis that this thread is about.

We have one group of Americans who still embrace the concept of unalienable rights and self governance whether or not they are aware of where those values originated.

We have another group of Americans who pretty much ignores the Constitution, the concept of unalienable rights and self governance, and the consequences of social programs because they are focused on the free stuff that big government provides and/or promises. That free stuff is the most important thing that drives their concept of government and social policy.

Do you agree or disagree with this. Do you see this as okay or not okay?

You have a simplistic view of the Constitution

To you, it is your document to do with as you wish. You believe that your interpretation is the only one that can possibly have any merit

Most offensively, you look at Constitutionally elected government and because it does not meet your political persuasion you claim they are trampling on the Constitution

Your childish objections to "free stuff" only applies to free stuff that others receive while your free stuff is somehow constitutionally protected

Nobody has a lesser understanding of the principles of our nation than a libertarian

Absolutely.

You'll also notice..that no "Libertarian" ever started a government. Rather..they seek to bend governments already up and running to their particular view point.

The fallacy in your argument here is that those who fought the Revolutionary War to wrest this country away from King George and who then forged a Constitution to ensure that our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be secured, defended, and protected and never again be taken away. . . . . .these people were libertarian (little 'L") to the core.

 

[rightwinger]

You have a simplistic view of the Constitution

To you, it is your document to do with as you wish. You believe that your interpretation is the only one that can possibly have any merit

Most offensively, you look at Constitutionally elected government and because it does not meet your political persuasion you claim they are trampling on the Constitution

Your childish objections to "free stuff" only applies to free stuff that others receive while your free stuff is somehow constitutionally protected

Nobody has a lesser understanding of the principles of our nation than a libertarian

Absolutely.

You'll also notice..that no "Libertarian" ever started a government. Rather..they seek to bend governments already up and running to their particular view point.

The fallacy in your argument here is that those who fought the Revolutionary War to wrest this country away from King George and who then forged a Constitution to ensure that our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be secured, defended, and protected and never again be taken away. . . . . .these people were libertarian (little 'L") to the core.

Actually, they were Liberals

 

[Foxfyre]

Absolutely.

You'll also notice..that no "Libertarian" ever started a government. Rather..they seek to bend governments already up and running to their particular view point.

The fallacy in your argument here is that those who fought the Revolutionary War to wrest this country away from King George and who then forged a Constitution to ensure that our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be secured, defended, and protected and never again be taken away. . . . . .these people were libertarian (little 'L") to the core.

Actually, they were Liberals

Classical liberals yes, i.e. libertarian in its purest form. They were not the social liberals of modern times that neither recognize nor respect anybody's unalienable rights. The Founders did not believe anybody was entitled to anybody else's stuff.

 

[Sallow]

You have a simplistic view of the Constitution

To you, it is your document to do with as you wish. You believe that your interpretation is the only one that can possibly have any merit

Most offensively, you look at Constitutionally elected government and because it does not meet your political persuasion you claim they are trampling on the Constitution

Your childish objections to "free stuff" only applies to free stuff that others receive while your free stuff is somehow constitutionally protected

Nobody has a lesser understanding of the principles of our nation than a libertarian

Absolutely.

You'll also notice..that no "Libertarian" ever started a government. Rather..they seek to bend governments already up and running to their particular view point.

The fallacy in your argument here is that those who fought the Revolutionary War to wrest this country away from King George and who then forged a Constitution to ensure that our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be secured, defended, and protected and never again be taken away. . . . . .these people were libertarian (little 'L") to the core.

Quite unsurprisingly..you are wrong. But don't let a little thing like the "Whiskey Rebellion" shoot your argument down in a bold flameout.

History is not your strong suit. Neither is your understanding of the Constitution or the Founders for that matter.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Absolutely.

You'll also notice..that no "Libertarian" ever started a government. Rather..they seek to bend governments already up and running to their particular view point.

The fallacy in your argument here is that those who fought the Revolutionary War to wrest this country away from King George and who then forged a Constitution to ensure that our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be secured, defended, and protected and never again be taken away. . . . . .these people were libertarian (little 'L") to the core.

Actually, they were Liberals

Here RW, please go educate yourself...
Libertarianism

 

[Sallow]

The fallacy in your argument here is that those who fought the Revolutionary War to wrest this country away from King George and who then forged a Constitution to ensure that our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be secured, defended, and protected and never again be taken away. . . . . .these people were libertarian (little 'L") to the core.

Actually, they were Liberals

Classical liberals yes, i.e. libertarian in its purest form. They were not the social liberals of modern times that neither recognize nor respect anybody's unalienable rights. The Founders did not believe anybody was entitled to anybody else's stuff.

Classical Liberal is a made up term conservatives use to identify themselves with the founders. And it basically means that "Liberalism" began and stopped in the 18th Century.

But it would also include:
-Blacks are 3/5 a person.
-Slavery is okay.
-Women do not have the right to vote.
-White Christian Male Landed Gentry should be the only folks with any power.

Good luck with that.

 

[DiamondDave]

Absolutely.

You'll also notice..that no "Libertarian" ever started a government. Rather..they seek to bend governments already up and running to their particular view point.

The fallacy in your argument here is that those who fought the Revolutionary War to wrest this country away from King George and who then forged a Constitution to ensure that our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be secured, defended, and protected and never again be taken away. . . . . .these people were libertarian (little 'L") to the core.

Actually, they were Liberals

Actually... if they were, they would not have written a constitution that was strictly designed to limit the power and scope of the federal government...

The founding fathers were about as close to modern day liberalism as John Wayne Gacy was to Mr. Rogers

 

[Foxfyre]

Absolutely.

You'll also notice..that no "Libertarian" ever started a government. Rather..they seek to bend governments already up and running to their particular view point.

The fallacy in your argument here is that those who fought the Revolutionary War to wrest this country away from King George and who then forged a Constitution to ensure that our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be secured, defended, and protected and never again be taken away. . . . . .these people were libertarian (little 'L") to the core.

Quite unsurprisingly..you are wrong. But don't let a little thing like the "Whiskey Rebellion" shoot your argument down in a bold flameout.

History is not your strong suit. Neither is your understanding of the Constitution or the Founders for that matter.

I will put my formal and practical history and Constitutional knowledge up against yours any day of the week if you think the "Whiskey Rebellion" has any relevance to whether I am entitled to your stuff.

 

[Nic_Driver]

As an adult American, you have a fundamental right to be provided:

1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter/housing
4. Furniture/appliances
5. Water, heat, air conditioning
6. An education
7. Health care/medical care
8. A living wage
9. Transportation
10. None of the above


Fifty or sixty years ago, the nation still had rich people and much less affluent people, but both groups shared essentially the same traditional values of honor, personal integrity, accountablility and responsibility and appreciation for time honored institutions of marriage, church, and local education. There were as many different circumstances, personalities and differences of opinion as ever, but essentially America was one culture of individual initiative and unlimited opportunity. This was a people that valued personal freedoms, integrity, responsibility, fiscal accountability, and American exceptionalism.

But over the decades we seem to be dividing into two distinct cultures. One is still firmly implanted in that culture of fifty/sixty years ago. The other is one that increasingly looks to society to fulfill their expectations and their basic needs. It is a culture of assumed victimization, excuses, sense of entitlement, blame, and resentment of those who seem to have already achieved the American dream. Concern for deficits, the national debt, the cost, results, or effect is not as important as meeting the needs and wants of the group.

And while of course there will be degrees of dynamics between these two extremes, the theory is that we have become two tribes. One are the hunters and gatherers as a matter of personal honor. The other are those who want the free stuff and honestly believe that the best society provides it.

Agree or disagree. I do think it is time that America has this debate.

(Can we keep this reasonably civil please?)

Just the two option for you huh? I think you've sabotaged the debate with your definitions...which als shows us your bias BTW.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

As long as we humans living in America, who are no longer self-sufficient hunter-gatherer nomadic tribes, need MONEY, a manmade value system JUST TO SURVIVE, then yes, there are things like food, shelter, clothing and water that MUST be met for basic survival of every man, woman or child, regardless of whether that person can afford it or not. To refuse that person is highly immoral, IMO.

 

[bripat9643]

The fallacy in your argument here is that those who fought the Revolutionary War to wrest this country away from King George and who then forged a Constitution to ensure that our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be secured, defended, and protected and never again be taken away. . . . . .these people were libertarian (little 'L") to the core.

Actually, they were Liberals

They were 18th Century liberals, which is exactly the opposite of a modern liberal. 18th Century liberals were indistinguishable from libertarians.

 

[bripat9643]

Quite unsurprisingly..you are wrong. But don't let a little thing like the "Whiskey Rebellion" shoot your argument down in a bold flameout.

History is not your strong suit. Neither is your understanding of the Constitution or the Founders for that matter.

 

[Sallow]

More specifically, I would like somebody to show me where it says in the Constitution that it is the right of any citizen to be provided any product or service by others.

I would like for anybody to explain a rationale for how it does not violate my rights to confiscate what I lawfully earned or acquired and give it to somebody else.

Unless (the generic) you want to say that the courts are infallible and determine what is right and wrong, in which case you would have to say that it was right and just to own slaves and practice segregation both of which previous Supreme Courts have upheld, let's take the courts out of this and reason together.

The government doesn't "confiscate" anything. It's part of the social pact..you pay in..and you get benefits..you don't like it?

Islands for Sale, Private Islands, Luxury Real Estate

Feel free.

Where is that power granted? Plain and simple... Your 'social pact' is not a constitutionally granted power...

jesus.. the entitlement junkie just never stops

That "power" is granted by the Constitution.

Preamble Note

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.

That's the mission statement.

These are those powers:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

And just to clearly define things as it pertains to taxes...

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

It's in English..and in black and white.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, they were Liberals

Classical liberals yes, i.e. libertarian in its purest form. They were not the social liberals of modern times that neither recognize nor respect anybody's unalienable rights. The Founders did not believe anybody was entitled to anybody else's stuff.

Classical Liberal is a made up term conservatives use to identify themselves with the founders. And it basically means that "Liberalism" began and stopped in the 18th Century.

But it would also include:
-Blacks are 3/5 a person.
-Slavery is okay.
-Women do not have the right to vote.
-White Christian Male Landed Gentry should be the only folks with any power.

Good luck with that.

Good lord, some of you people are obsessed with creating straw men and red herrings, but assuming that the topic is about any of that, please continue and explain why any of that obligates you to provide me with free stuff.

Could we focus on that component of the topic please?

 

[Sallow]

The fallacy in your argument here is that those who fought the Revolutionary War to wrest this country away from King George and who then forged a Constitution to ensure that our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be secured, defended, and protected and never again be taken away. . . . . .these people were libertarian (little 'L") to the core.

Actually, they were Liberals

They were 18th Century liberals, which is exactly the opposite of a modern liberal. 18th Century liberals were indistinguishable from libertarians.

Well yes and no.

Today Liberals believe that all people..black, white, asian..whatever..are people..and not property.

They also believe that everyone can vote..not just White Male Christians with Land.

See the diff?

You guys are more like the 18th century liberals..

 

[Sallow]

The fallacy in your argument here is that those who fought the Revolutionary War to wrest this country away from King George and who then forged a Constitution to ensure that our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be secured, defended, and protected and never again be taken away. . . . . .these people were libertarian (little 'L") to the core.

Quite unsurprisingly..you are wrong. But don't let a little thing like the "Whiskey Rebellion" shoot your argument down in a bold flameout.

History is not your strong suit. Neither is your understanding of the Constitution or the Founders for that matter.

I will put my formal and practical history and Constitutional knowledge up against yours any day of the week if you think the "Whiskey Rebellion" has any relevance to whether I am entitled to your stuff.

Sure it is..and it speaks volumes about your understanding of history..and over simplification of the role of government.

The whole "entitled to your stuff" meme is specious. Again..you don't like the social compact..you are free to leave.

Unlike most places.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Classical liberals yes, i.e. libertarian in its purest form. They were not the social liberals of modern times that neither recognize nor respect anybody's unalienable rights. The Founders did not believe anybody was entitled to anybody else's stuff.

Classical Liberal is a made up term conservatives use to identify themselves with the founders. And it basically means that "Liberalism" began and stopped in the 18th Century.

But it would also include:
-Blacks are 3/5 a person.
-Slavery is okay.
-Women do not have the right to vote.
-White Christian Male Landed Gentry should be the only folks with any power.

Good luck with that.

Good lord, some of you people are obsessed with creating straw men and red herrings, but assuming that the topic is about any of that, please continue and explain why any of that obligates you to provide me with free stuff.

Could we focus on that component of the topic please?

You'll not get an intelligent conversation from one who erroneously believes that the 3/5 Clause was meant to disparage blacks.

 

[DiamondDave]

As long as we humans living in America, who are no longer self-sufficient hunter-gatherer nomadic tribes, need MONEY, a manmade value system JUST TO SURVIVE, then yes, there are things like food, shelter, clothing and water that MUST be met for basic survival of every man, woman or child, regardless of whether that person can afford it or not. To refuse that person is highly immoral, IMO.

Not refusing someone access or the freedom to obtain is FAR DIFFERENT than giving it to someone at the expense of someone else, forcibly

 

[jillian]

Classical Liberal is a made up term conservatives use to identify themselves with the founders. And it basically means that "Liberalism" began and stopped in the 18th Century.

But it would also include:
-Blacks are 3/5 a person.
-Slavery is okay.
-Women do not have the right to vote.
-White Christian Male Landed Gentry should be the only folks with any power.

Good luck with that.

Good lord, some of you people are obsessed with creating straw men and red herrings, but assuming that the topic is about any of that, please continue and explain why any of that obligates you to provide me with free stuff.

Could we focus on that component of the topic please?

You'll not get an intelligent conversation from one who erroneously believes that the 3/5 Clause was meant to disparage blacks.

and what do you think it was about?