Two cultures: Hunters and Gatherers vs Free Stuff

[DiamondDave]

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.



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.

Wrong...

Firstly.. the preamble does not grant power.. it is an invocation, and introduction....

Secondly... there is no listing of power to create a social pact to have the government act as a provider of a good or service, especially at the hands of others... the powers STRICTLY laid out are quite limited in scope.. taxation or the raising of money to run government and government empowered charges is strictly stated, the government acting as a charity is not

You should learn a little reading comprehension...

And before you start citing 'case law', I will ask you to show in the constitution where case law is allowed to grant power that is not strictly laid out currently... the amendment process can be invoked to change the powers of government, the courts cannot do any such thing

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Again

There is no constitutional 'social compact'

Nice try... repeating it continually does not make it come in to being

 

[Newby]

Citizen A (your example) is not directly responsible for providing all those things to Citizen B anymore than Citizen A is directly responsible for maintaining the Pacific Fleet or Yellowstone National Park. But the common government of both Citizen A and Citizen B should provide for those services. The framing of your question infers that all the tax dollars of one person should go directly into the pocket of another.

Well, my tax dollars have shown up on the balance sheets of McDonald Douglas, Grumman, General Dynamics and Halliburton. They have also been used to provide a warm home, an education for other's children, meals for the hungry and medical aid to the sick and elderly.

Now I can argue that those are more virtuous than giving money to defense contractors so they can enjoy a conference in Hawaii or bonuses for their corporate leaders.

I think that if Citizen B is never helped, there are more dire consequences than if Halliburton gets a no bid contract. Call me crazy, but I have been told that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I'm just following those principles.

No, no, no. You changed the question and I did not give permission to do that.

The question is not what benefit is there to society if Citizen B is helped. The question is not whether there are merits in helping Citizen B.

The question is on what moral authority do you require Citizen A to provide for Citizen B whether individually or collectively and how do you justify the choice of who is given the moral authority to confiscate what Citizen A rightfuly earned or acquired it and give it to Citizen B?

Both Citizen A and Citizen B are members of our society. Citizen A does not give money directly to Citizen B.....he contributes to our society and our society provides programs that help the society as a whole. It does not mean that all members contribute equally or that all receive equally....but that the society as a whole benefits

In other words, for the 'common good', and when you have 'common good' you have to trample on individual liberty. So, which is more important? I say individual liberty.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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?

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The original poster has said it all very well and in great detail and fact. Nice work. It is tiring fighting off so many misconceptions of so many of our founding principles. It's really quite sad.

 

[Foxfyre]

Pulling back to the topic which I repeat:

Are there two cultures in America? Those who work and produce and accept responsibility for what they have vs those who feel entitled to be provided with free stuff?

Some more food for thought on that topic:

. . . . After all, the world before the twentieth century–before the New Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society–was a dark, dangerous, heartless place where hordes of Americans starved in the streets.

Except it wasn’t and they didn’t. The actual history of America shows something else entirely: picking your neighbors’ pockets is not a necessity of survival. Before America’s entitlement state, free individuals planned for and coped with tough times, taking responsibility for their own lives. . . .

. . . . “Those in need,” historian Walter Trattner writes, “. . . looked first to family, kin, and neighbors for aid, including the landlord, who sometimes deferred the rent; the local butcher or grocer, who frequently carried them for a while by allowing bills to go unpaid; and the local saloonkeeper, who often came to their aid by providing loans and outright gifts, including free meals and, on occasion, temporary jobs. Next, the needy sought assistance from various agencies in the community–those of their own devising, such as churches or religious groups, social and fraternal associations, mutual aid societies, local ethnic groups, and trade unions.”. . . .

. . . . Only when other options were exhausted would people turn to formal private charities. By the mid-nineteenth century, groups aiming to help widows, orphans, and other “worthy poor” were launched in every major city in America. There were some government welfare programs, but they were minuscule compared to private efforts.

In 1910, in New York State, for instance, 151 private benevolent groups provided care for children, and 216 provided care for adults or adults with children. If you were homeless in Chicago in 1933, for example, you could find shelter at one of the city’s 614 YMCAs, or one of its 89 Salvation Army barracks, or one of its 75 Goodwill Industries dormitories.

“In fact,” writes Trattner, “so rapidly did private agencies multiply that before long America’s larger cities had what to many people was an embarrassing number of them. Charity directories took as many as 100 pages to list and describe the numerous voluntary agencies that sought to alleviate misery, and combat every imaginable emergency.”

It all makes you wonder: If Americans could thrive without an entitlement state a century ago, how much easier would it be today, when Americans are so rich that 95 percent of our “poor” own color TVs? But we won’t get rid of the entitlement state until we get rid of today’s widespread entitlement mentality, and return to a society in which individual responsibility is the watchword.
America Before The Entitlement State - Forbes

 

[rightwinger]

No, no, no. You changed the question and I did not give permission to do that.

The question is not what benefit is there to society if Citizen B is helped. The question is not whether there are merits in helping Citizen B.

The question is on what moral authority do you require Citizen A to provide for Citizen B whether individually or collectively and how do you justify the choice of who is given the moral authority to confiscate what Citizen A rightfuly earned or acquired it and give it to Citizen B?

Both Citizen A and Citizen B are members of our society. Citizen A does not give money directly to Citizen B.....he contributes to our society and our society provides programs that help the society as a whole. It does not mean that all members contribute equally or that all receive equally....but that the society as a whole benefits

In other words, for the 'common good', and when you have 'common good' you have to trample on individual liberty. So, which is more important? I say individual liberty.

Both are capable of coexisting

 

[Nosmo King]

What really chafes is the underlying message of this thread: that there is a cultural divide between those with means and those without who are enjoying federal largess. Such a cultural divide makes it easy for those willing to cut away the social safety net and abandon those unfortunate people to their fate.

Conveniently, the folks who would easily do away with the social safety net have forgotten that federal largess is also extended to profitable companies, large agricultural interests, the separate states and other entities not specifically mentioned by the constitution.

We Liberals believe in the virtue of the social safety net. And we believe that any argument that cites specifically the poor on constitutional grounds must also apply to any and all federal spending not mentioned in the constitution. I personally believe that singling out the poor demonstrates a degree of indifference and apathy to the plight of the unfortunate. This indifference, this apathy is anathema to any Americans born with a sense of justice and fairness. It also demonstrates a willingness to allow the golden boys to continue to get the funding presumably because those golden boys are job creators.

This notion really shows the level of selfishness and greed the modern Conservative seems to be content in. No rich guy ever opened a factory because he glanced at his 1040 and found he had even more money than before and he should open a factory to celebrate. Demand creates jobs. And no rich guy is going to risk his wealth without paying customers clamoring for what he makes.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Are there two cultures in America? Those who work and produce and accept responsibility for what they have vs those who feel entitled to be provided with free stuff?

yes, there are. there is also a few distinct reasons for it. Many of them covered here. The one I've been spending a lot of time on is serbversion installed in our society during WWII, through the red scare and on into today. It's all throughout our cultrue today and is eating the founding principles up little by little, day by day. It's in our government, our media, our learning institutions, literature, arts, etc...

What can be done now?

I'm at a loss.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

You don't get more disparaging than that

Slaves were not even 3/5 of a person when it came to rights......they had no rights

 

[Foxfyre]

What really chafes is the underlying message of this thread: that there is a cultural divide between those with means and those without who are enjoying federal largess. Such a cultural divide makes it easy for those willing to cut away the social safety net and abandon those unfortunate people to their fate.

Conveniently, the folks who would easily do away with the social safety net have forgotten that federal largess is also extended to profitable companies, large agricultural interests, the separate states and other entities not specifically mentioned by the constitution.

We Liberals believe in the virtue of the social safety net. And we believe that any argument that cites specifically the poor on constitutional grounds must also apply to any and all federal spending not mentioned in the constitution. I personally believe that singling out the poor demonstrates a degree of indifference and apathy to the plight of the unfortunate. This indifference, this apathy is anathema to any Americans born with a sense of justice and fairness. It also demonstrates a willingness to allow the golden boys to continue to get the funding presumably because those golden boys are job creators.

This notion really shows the level of selfishness and greed the modern Conservative seems to be content in. No rich guy ever opened a factory because he glanced at his 1040 and found he had even more money than before and he should open a factory to celebrate. Demand creates jobs. And no rich guy is going to risk his wealth without paying customers clamoring for what he makes.

No the underlying theme is that we are a nation with a growing number of people who thnk they are entitled to what other people earn whether or not they have done anything to merit what other people earn.

Can we focus on that please with an objective to determine whether this is a good thing, a bad thing, a productive thing, a destructive thing etc.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The founders had an 18th century view of social programs....think pre Oliver Twist.

A newly established nation based on agriculture barely had the economy to support itself, let alone social programs. Modern industrialized nations have seen the horrors of not having a social safety net. That is why we look out for our less fortunate

 

[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.

The founders had an 18th century view of social programs....think pre Oliver Twist.

A newly established nation based on agriculture barely had the economy to support itself, let alone social programs. Modern industrialized nations have seen the horrors of not having a social safety net. That is why we look out for our less fortunate

Read that Forbes article I posted a little while ago and get back to me.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

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

Oh really? So what if a person does not have the "freedom to obtain" or a way to earn their survival?.. Is someone's income - or wherewithal to obtain money (aka survival) really their total (and only) self-worth in your eyes? And I know you'll bring up "charity". You and I both know there isn't enough "charity" in the world to take care of all those who desperately are in need of survival basics. We made a social pact in this country, as a civilized society, that we would take care of our own when they are in need. We do not want children and the elderly begging and dying in the streets. If you don't like that, and feel it is SUCH A GODDAMN IMPOSITION to unite with everyone else to take care of our least fortunate citizens in this country, then please feel free to go and live in a sink or swim society like Russia. I hear Somalia's nice and cut-throat too... God, you righties' smug assholiness pisses me off. I'm out.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

Oh really? So what if a person does not have the "freedom to obtain" or a way to earn their survival?.. Is someone's income - or wherewithal to obtain money (aka survival) really their total (and only) self-worth in your eyes? And I know you'll bring up "charity". You and I both know there isn't enough "charity" in the world to take care of all those who desperately are in need of survival basics. We made a social pact in this country, as a civilized society, that we would take care of our own when they are in need. We do not want children and the elderly begging and dying in the streets. If you don't like that, and feel it is SUCH A GODDAMN IMPOSITION to unite with everyone else to take care of your least fortunate citizens in this society, then please feel free to go and live in a sink or swim society like Russia. I hear Somalia's nice... God, you righties' smug assholiness pisses me off. I'm out.

Who does not have the freedom to obtain for their own needs?? Mentally incompetent people, prisoners, and wards of the state, and WHO ELSE??

Your achievements, earnings, abilities, decisions, etc ARE ON YOU MOTHERFUCKER

You are not simply owed for your wants and needs because you fucking exist

There is no constitutional social compact... no matter how much you and nosmolib try and repeat it into being

 

[Nosmo King]

What really chafes is the underlying message of this thread: that there is a cultural divide between those with means and those without who are enjoying federal largess. Such a cultural divide makes it easy for those willing to cut away the social safety net and abandon those unfortunate people to their fate.

Conveniently, the folks who would easily do away with the social safety net have forgotten that federal largess is also extended to profitable companies, large agricultural interests, the separate states and other entities not specifically mentioned by the constitution.

We Liberals believe in the virtue of the social safety net. And we believe that any argument that cites specifically the poor on constitutional grounds must also apply to any and all federal spending not mentioned in the constitution. I personally believe that singling out the poor demonstrates a degree of indifference and apathy to the plight of the unfortunate. This indifference, this apathy is anathema to any Americans born with a sense of justice and fairness. It also demonstrates a willingness to allow the golden boys to continue to get the funding presumably because those golden boys are job creators.

This notion really shows the level of selfishness and greed the modern Conservative seems to be content in. No rich guy ever opened a factory because he glanced at his 1040 and found he had even more money than before and he should open a factory to celebrate. Demand creates jobs. And no rich guy is going to risk his wealth without paying customers clamoring for what he makes.

No the underlying theme is that we are a nation with a growing number of people who thnk they are entitled to what other people earn whether or not they have done anything to merit what other people earn.

Can we focus on that please with an objective to determine whether this is a good thing, a bad thing, a productive thing, a destructive thing etc.

Once the constitutional argument is unleashed, the underclass is a "red herring". There is a totality with constitutional arguments. And that totality must address all subsidies, not class divisions.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

You are not simply owed for your wants and needs because you fucking exist

When you are reliant upon a manmade value system like money, yes you kinda are owed for your "existence"... especially if you don't have any money - or any way to get enough to survive on. The alternative is starve and die. Do you really think all people should not be provided with the very basics for survival. Really? And yes, we do have a social contract in this country, and THE MAJORITY of people support a safety net for our poorest citizens.

 

[rightwinger]

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.



That's the mission statement.

These are those powers:



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.

Wrong...

Firstly.. the preamble does not grant power.. it is an invocation, and introduction....

Secondly... there is no listing of power to create a social pact to have the government act as a provider of a good or service, especially at the hands of others... the powers STRICTLY laid out are quite limited in scope.. taxation or the raising of money to run government and government empowered charges is strictly stated, the government acting as a charity is not

You should learn a little reading comprehension...

And before you start citing 'case law', I will ask you to show in the constitution where case law is allowed to grant power that is not strictly laid out currently... the amendment process can be invoked to change the powers of government, the courts cannot do any such thing

Marbury vs Madison

 

[g5000]

I think there are known pathways to success. If you stay in school, then get a job, and wait until you are married to have children, and don't quit your job at the drop of a hat, you have a pretty good chance of making it in life.

Since the formula for success is known to everyone, I think if a person decides to not follow that formula, they do not deserve any help if they fail. They do not have a right to a damn thing.

I believe the same for any business. I think if a business takes a big risk, they do not deserve any help if their risk causes them to fail. They should go out of business and start over.

I think an implicit guarantee by the government that it will rescue you if you decide to not follow the established pathways to success incentivizes people to not work as hard to succeed and it incentivizes businesses to take giant risks they would never otherwise take.

You will learn the right way how to walk a tightrope if there is no net under you. You will start with the tightrope closer to the ground. You will start out with reasonable expecations and with an understanding of your personal limitations. You will take your own precautions when you cannot rely on anyone else to provide them for you. And you will become a better tightrope walker as a result.

How many of us know a teenager or slacker who thinks he should be given a loan to start a business when he has never worked a day in his life? A bank knows better than to loan such people any money, because it is the bank's money. But it seems our government encourages reckless behavior because it is someone else's money they are putting at risk. Our money.

You are not entitled to a house. You are entitled to the pathway to earn a house.

You are not entitled to food. You are entitled to the pathway to earn food.

The government's job is to keep the pathways open.

I have become very concerned of late that the government is committing a far greater wrong than providing "free stuff". I have become concerned the government is choking off the pathway to success.

Are there people who have fallen through no fault of their own? Certainly. I created and ran a local charity in my area to help such people.

What is the percentage of "needy" people who are in their situation through no fault of their own? I don't think anyone has any idea.

But I do have a very strong feeling that the percentage has been rising for some time. I think the system has been legislatively rigged to give some people an unfair leg up, at the expense of others.

 

[DiamondDave]

You are not simply owed for your wants and needs because you fucking exist

When you are reliant upon a manmade value system like money, yes you kinda are owed for your "existence"... especially if you don't have any money - or any way to get enough to survive on. The alternative is starve and die. Do you really think all people should not be provided with the very basics for survival. Really? And yes, we do have a social contract in this country, and THE MAJORITY of people support a safety net for our poorest citizens.

And besides being mentally or physically incompetent, a prisoner, or a ward of the state, you are prevented from earning HOW?? Do you not have the freedom that everyone else does to work one or more jobs, train, study, make decisions, advance, etc that every other citizen does??

You are not owed a goddamn thing.. you are responsible for you.. your personal needs or wants are YOUR PERSONAL NEEDS AND WANTS

Now... do I call for people to willingly give to charities that speak to them?? Hell yeah... charities that help the poor or needy, disease research, children's causes, women's causes... whatever one or ones that float your boat... but that is VOLUNTARY giving of yourself (not of the monies or earnings of others)

And no.. no matter HOW MANY TIMES YOU REPEAT IT.. we DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL 'SOCIAL CONTRACT'

idiot