Why do you want more government in your life?

[Ringel05]

OK. So you admit that these rights are anything but self-evident. They exist merely as an ipse dixit,because the Founders thought they existed (or at least said they thought they existed). I don't know how strongly every single one of them held that belief. I do know that without it they didn't have much of a case for secession from Britain.
Can we admit there is no such thing as "natural rights" that come from the Creator or anything else?

You can if you wish. No skin off of my nose.
As for the rest it seems to have worked out fairly well.
Oh, and I admit nothing concerning you claims.

Well you havent defended your position. Are you conceding the argument?

No I have defended my argument in the form of the the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and more importantly the writings of the founding fathers considering both documents. You are more than free to disagree, once again, no skin off of my nose.

 

[Newby]

Anyone here live in a zoned community where they tell you just about everything you can and can't do with your property?

And who tells you that? The local government, the township, the city, the zoning board.

Just a reminder to all of you who think the federal government is the big villain when it comes to trampling your freedoms. Just a reminder to all of you who think your state and local governments having more power is the answer.

I'll completely agree with you on that one, they're out of control as well.

 

[The Rabbi]

You can if you wish. No skin off of my nose.
As for the rest it seems to have worked out fairly well.
Oh, and I admit nothing concerning you claims.

Well you havent defended your position. Are you conceding the argument?

No I have defended my argument in the form of the the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and more importantly the writings of the founding fathers considering both documents. You are more than free to disagree, once again, no skin off of my nose.

Resorting to an ipse dixit fallacy is not defending anything. Something is not true simply because the Founders, or anyone else, said it was. Something is true because it is demonstrably true. And you have failed to demonstrate it.

 

[The Rabbi]

how about these businesses become successful ON THEIR OWN without big gvt backing their rear ends?

THAT would make big gvt a heck of a lot smaller....

why should i through taxes, pay for some of big corps profits?

Whicbh businesses are you talking about? How are you paying for corporate profits through your taxes?

through Corporate and Agricultural welfare..... we spend BILLIONS on it!

edit

and through corporate bail outs, and through tax credits and loopholes, ALL with our tax monies, FOR THEM and for their profits.

What is "corporate and agricultural welfare"? Is that just some kind of slogan? Can you be specific?
And what corporate bail outs are you talking about? Banks have mostly paid back the money with interest. And since the entities that took those bailouts had no profits, by definition, then you aren't supporting any corporate profits with your tax money.
I get the idea you can't think about these issues with anything other than slogans and cliches.

 

[Newby]

Well you havent defended your position. Are you conceding the argument?

No I have defended my argument in the form of the the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and more importantly the writings of the founding fathers considering both documents. You are more than free to disagree, once again, no skin off of my nose.

Resorting to an ipse dixit fallacy is not defending anything. Something is not true simply because the Founders, or anyone else, said it was. Something is true because it is demonstrably true. And you have failed to demonstrate it.

The founding fathers believed that certain rights were inalienable and endowed by your creator because to give the government control over granting those rights meant that the government would also have the power to take those rights away if they so choose. By saying that certain rights were not within the power of the government to grant to begin with means that the government does not have the power to take them away either. It limits the power and control of the government, which is exactly what the founding fathers wanted and why they stated it the way they did. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[DiamondDave]

Anyone here live in a zoned community where they tell you just about everything you can and can't do with your property?

And who tells you that? The local government, the township, the city, the zoning board.

Just a reminder to all of you who think the federal government is the big villain when it comes to trampling your freedoms. Just a reminder to all of you who think your state and local governments having more power is the answer.

I live in a community with an HOA.. and I attend and help to direct the directions and rules and I have helped to throw out many silly rules...

And there is no doubt that there is not just corruption at the Fed level.. being in MD, one of the bluest states out there, government is ripe with corruption, over-reach, over-spending in unnecessary areas, etc.... but when at state levels, we have other choices in this country for where to go.. .at a federal level, there is no escape to have and remain a US residing citizen... in fact, as soon as my children are of age and I do not have to deal with a custody situation with my ex, I will indeed be moving out of the MD hell-hole into a more relaxed state in terms of taxation, intervention, etc

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because it's easier than taking personal responsibility.

There is someone to blame for your own shortcomings and failures.

So it's my shortcoming that cause me to prefer to pay town taxes and have government employees maintain the roads in my town than for me to go out there and do it myself? It's my shortcoming to prefer that the town snowplow clears my road instead me going out there with my snowblower?
It's my shortcoming to want government employees to come and investigate a theft from my property? I'm a failure because I don't want to try to track down the perpetrator myself?
I'm a failure because I think public schools are a better way of giving everyone an opportunity for an education than to throw the whole system away and let everyone fend for themselves trying to get their kids educated privately?

really?

What a coincidence that all your points are exactly the things a government is supposed to do, and you completely and conveniently skipped all of the social entitlements and programs that would ruin your point. Way to go.

I'm just expanding on the indisputable fact that most people who claim they want less government really only want less of the government that they don't care for personally.

And who in a democratic of-the-people government decides what the government is supposed to do, as you put it?

 

[Ringel05]

Well you havent defended your position. Are you conceding the argument?

No I have defended my argument in the form of the the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and more importantly the writings of the founding fathers considering both documents. You are more than free to disagree, once again, no skin off of my nose.

Resorting to an ipse dixit fallacy is not defending anything. Something is not true simply because the Founders, or anyone else, said it was. Something is true because it is demonstrably true. And you have failed to demonstrate it.

So what you are saying is you want me to post the entire collections of tombs the founders wrote plus all previous and post pertinent historical writings to prove the point. (!!??) Besides, your 'impression' of my defense doesn't exactly make said defense an ipse dixit fallacy. You can do the research yourself, there is not enough space on this board to post all of what you want to see. Try the esoteric BS with someone else.

 

[Care4all]

Whicbh businesses are you talking about? How are you paying for corporate profits through your taxes?

through Corporate and Agricultural welfare..... we spend BILLIONS on it!

edit

and through corporate bail outs, and through tax credits and loopholes, ALL with our tax monies, FOR THEM and for their profits.

What is "corporate and agricultural welfare"? Is that just some kind of slogan? Can you be specific?
And what corporate bail outs are you talking about? Banks have mostly paid back the money with interest. And since the entities that took those bailouts had no profits, by definition, then you aren't supporting any corporate profits with your tax money.
I get the idea you can't think about these issues with anything other than slogans and cliches.

only if the person you aregue with is intentionally stupid, dumb, and lazy....

do your own legwork if you want specifics....try

''corporate welfare''

''agriculture welfare''

and nooooooo, the bail out money in total WILL NEVER be paid back in full....AIG, Fannie, Freddie.....all the bank collapses and failures that the fdic had to pay for....

i don't see the federal gvt giving/loaning me money to better my situation as they did with corporations

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone here live in a zoned community where they tell you just about everything you can and can't do with your property?

And who tells you that? The local government, the township, the city, the zoning board.

Just a reminder to all of you who think the federal government is the big villain when it comes to trampling your freedoms. Just a reminder to all of you who think your state and local governments having more power is the answer.

You make a decent point.
But it is easier to change government at the local level than the national level.

Yeah but only the federal government could declare it unconstitutional to take away a person's right to decide what color they want to paint their house.

 

[jillian]

The founding fathers believed that certain rights were inalienable and endowed by your creator because to give the government control over granting those rights meant that the government would also have the power to take those rights away if they so choose. By saying that certain rights were not within the power of the government to grant to begin with means that the government does not have the power to take them away either. It limits the power and control of the government, which is exactly what the founding fathers wanted and why they stated it the way they did. It's not that hard to understand.

the concept of 'inalienable rights' is a philosophical construct, not a corporeal reality. it comes from brilliant philosophers of the day like john stewart mills. emanuel kant believed that such 'inalienable rights' derived from reason alone.

jean jacques rousseau, whose philosophies were also borrowed by the founders felt that the social contract alone was sufficient to convey 'inalienable rights'.

there was no agreement that such rights were natural or divine.

and the declaration of independence is not binding law, but a statement of philosophy.

and the founders would be horrified by the perversion of their words, imo. in fact, circumstances prove that it was the electorate who were not trusted by the founders... not government.

which is why the only criminal law set forth in the constitution concerns treason.

not that hard to understand.

 

[Samson]

The founding fathers believed that certain rights were inalienable and endowed by your creator because to give the government control over granting those rights meant that the government would also have the power to take those rights away if they so choose. By saying that certain rights were not within the power of the government to grant to begin with means that the government does not have the power to take them away either. It limits the power and control of the government, which is exactly what the founding fathers wanted and why they stated it the way they did. It's not that hard to understand.

the concept of 'inalienable rights' is a philosophical construct, not a corporeal reality. it comes from brilliant philosophers of the day like john stewart mills. emanuel kant believed that such 'inalienable rights' derived from reason alone.

jean jacques rousseau, whose philosophies were also borrowed by the founders felt that the social contract alone was sufficient to convey 'inalienable rights'.

there was no agreement that such rights were natural or divine.

and the declaration of independence is not binding law, but a statement of philosophy.

and the founders would be horrified by the perversion of their words, imo. in fact, circumstances prove that it was the electorate who were not trusted by the founders... not government.

which is why the only criminal law set forth in the constitution concerns treason.

not that hard to understand.

Nonetheless,

I'm not able to make the jump between the only criminal law in the constitution concerning treason, and proof that the founding fathers didn't trust the electorate.

However,

Its much easier for me to jump from the fact that they never intended for wimmin to vote, and proof that the founding fathers didn't trust the electorate.

 

[Ringel05]

The founding fathers believed that certain rights were inalienable and endowed by your creator because to give the government control over granting those rights meant that the government would also have the power to take those rights away if they so choose. By saying that certain rights were not within the power of the government to grant to begin with means that the government does not have the power to take them away either. It limits the power and control of the government, which is exactly what the founding fathers wanted and why they stated it the way they did. It's not that hard to understand.

the concept of 'inalienable rights' is a philosophical construct, not a corporeal reality. it comes from brilliant philosophers of the day like john stewart mills. emanuel kant believed that such 'inalienable rights' derived from reason alone.

jean jacques rousseau, whose philosophies were also borrowed by the founders felt that the social contract alone was sufficient to convey 'inalienable rights'.

there was no agreement that such rights were natural or divine.

and the declaration of independence is not binding law, but a statement of philosophy.

and the founders would be horrified by the perversion of their words, imo. in fact, circumstances prove that it was the electorate who were not trusted by the founders... not government.

which is why the only criminal law set forth in the constitution concerns treason.

not that hard to understand.

True but this aspect of the the current discussion is whether or not the Constitution gives the citizens rights or whether it simply endorses those rights as previously existing and simply limits the government in respect to those rights.

 

[Ringel05]

Anyone here live in a zoned community where they tell you just about everything you can and can't do with your property?

And who tells you that? The local government, the township, the city, the zoning board.

Just a reminder to all of you who think the federal government is the big villain when it comes to trampling your freedoms. Just a reminder to all of you who think your state and local governments having more power is the answer.

You make a decent point.
But it is easier to change government at the local level than the national level.

Yeah but only the federal government could declare it unconstitutional to take away a person's right to decide what color they want to paint their house.

No only the courts can declare constitutionality.

 

[DiamondDave]

You make a decent point.
But it is easier to change government at the local level than the national level.

Yeah but only the federal government could declare it unconstitutional to take away a person's right to decide what color they want to paint their house.

No only the courts can declare constitutionality.

And as argued... I am trying to see where people who assert this power of the SC, say that this power derives from within the constitution... as this is not written as a power of the federal or supreme court to reinterpret constitutionality, but this has been a power that that part of government has ASSUMED it has.... in fact there is power granted for judicial power, but nothing for constitutional interpretation at all.. the power for changes to the constitution, including rewording, addition, subtraction, etc lies solely in the amendment process

For if the SC or the federal court can continually reinterpret on whim or merely by what is said by justices at that time, then we actually have no inalienable individual rights at all... as a reinterpretation can usurp them away

 

[NYcarbineer]

You make a decent point.
But it is easier to change government at the local level than the national level.

Yeah but only the federal government could declare it unconstitutional to take away a person's right to decide what color they want to paint their house.

No only the courts can declare constitutionality.

What?! The Supreme Court is part of the federal government. It's like, you know, a branch of the federal government. You know, like, when they say our federal government is composed of three branches?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah but only the federal government could declare it unconstitutional to take away a person's right to decide what color they want to paint their house.

No only the courts can declare constitutionality.

And as argued... I am trying to see where people who assert this power of the SC, say that this power derives from within the constitution... as this is not written as a power of the federal or supreme court to reinterpret constitutionality, but this has been a power that that part of government has ASSUMED it has.... in fact there is power granted for judicial power, but nothing for constitutional interpretation at all.. the power for changes to the constitution, including rewording, addition, subtraction, etc lies solely in the amendment process

For if the SC or the federal court can continually reinterpret on whim or merely by what is said by justices at that time, then we actually have no inalienable individual rights at all... as a reinterpretation can usurp them away

How do you propose, and be specific, to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, if the Supreme Court ought not have that authority?

 

[DiamondDave]

No only the courts can declare constitutionality.

And as argued... I am trying to see where people who assert this power of the SC, say that this power derives from within the constitution... as this is not written as a power of the federal or supreme court to reinterpret constitutionality, but this has been a power that that part of government has ASSUMED it has.... in fact there is power granted for judicial power, but nothing for constitutional interpretation at all.. the power for changes to the constitution, including rewording, addition, subtraction, etc lies solely in the amendment process

For if the SC or the federal court can continually reinterpret on whim or merely by what is said by justices at that time, then we actually have no inalienable individual rights at all... as a reinterpretation can usurp them away

How do you propose, and be specific, to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, if the Supreme Court ought not have that authority?

The writings in the constitution are very specific within the rights and powers granted... to reinterpret is to change... and as stated, any change to the constitution must be done through the amendment process.. this is laid forth in the constitution.... for example, things like Roe v Wade are reinterpretations... to have a 'right' to abortion, by the rule of law in the constitution, we would indeed have to have an amendment to make it so... there should indeed be very few challenges to constitutional interpretation or reinterpretation away from original wording or intent... and IF constitutionality questions are indeed thought to need to go to the SC, all I ask is that we follow the constitution and go to the amendment process... for the types of cases the judiciary of the fed can here are specifically laid out in section 2 of article 3

Again.. if SC judges can continually reinterpret rights or constitutionality and indeed change the intent or standing of the constitution without going thru the amendment process... then indeed we have no inalienable rights at all...
For again... Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Fed does not get to just up it's powers because it wants to or because 50.00000001% of the populace wants it to.. there is indeed a process for the constitution, which is the rule of law for the country, to go thru change

 

[Ringel05]

Yeah but only the federal government could declare it unconstitutional to take away a person's right to decide what color they want to paint their house.

No only the courts can declare constitutionality.

What?! The Supreme Court is part of the federal government. It's like, you know, a branch of the federal government. You know, like, when they say our federal government is composed of three branches?

You said "the federal government" which inherently refers to all three branchs. You did not specify - duh.

 

[The Rabbi]

No I have defended my argument in the form of the the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and more importantly the writings of the founding fathers considering both documents. You are more than free to disagree, once again, no skin off of my nose.

Resorting to an ipse dixit fallacy is not defending anything. Something is not true simply because the Founders, or anyone else, said it was. Something is true because it is demonstrably true. And you have failed to demonstrate it.

So what you are saying is you want me to post the entire collections of tombs the founders wrote plus all previous and post pertinent historical writings to prove the point. (!!??) Besides, your 'impression' of my defense doesn't exactly make said defense an ipse dixit fallacy. You can do the research yourself, there is not enough space on this board to post all of what you want to see. Try the esoteric BS with someone else.

The word is "tomes".
And posting them wouldn't prove anything more than the Founders believed in the concept. It would not validate the concept.
Sorry that asking for proof of assertions is "esoteric BS" in your book. In my book it constitutes a rational argument.