An honest question for conservatives

[wjmacguffin]

First, this is not trolling. I am an admitted liberal but I enjoy hearing different points of view so I can better understand what other people see or think. That's why this is an honest question: I want to understand the conservative viewpoint.

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

1) Protect our homeland.
2) Protect our political and economic foreign interests
3) Create fiscal policy conducive to the growth of business and industry
4) Establish and enforce domestic criminal law that is based upon actual harm to the citizenry
5) After the top four are accomplished, shut the **** up and stay out of our lives.

Thank you, BluePhantom, for contributing to a discussion and answering my question. I really appreciate that.

 

[wjmacguffin]

If I had a dollar for every thread that started out:
An honest question for conservatives


They rarely are, BTW

I'm sure. I was undecided about posting this question here, as I assumed trolls would have a field day attacking instead of answering. Then again, like you said, I assume trolls would also post this kind of question. I hope some will believe I'm sincere.

BTW, Go Gators! After the Bowling Green game, I was worried--now I'm feeling confident!

 

[del]

If I had a dollar for every thread that started out:
An honest question for conservatives


They rarely are, BTW

at least the questions matches the answers in that regard

 

[there4eyeM]

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

Wrong.

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

 

[g5000]

First, this is not trolling. I am an admitted liberal but I enjoy hearing different points of view so I can better understand what other people see or think. That's why this is an honest question: I want to understand the conservative viewpoint.

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

With so many conservatives decrying taxation and government regulation, what should (if anything) governments do? Are there any tasks that should belong to the government rather than a private business? Assuming the government collects something in taxes, what should those tax dollars be spent on?

Again, I promise this is an honest question and I'm not setting folks up with a pre-planned, "airtight" counter-argument.

I think government should protect our national interests, our rights, and interstate commerce.

To protect our national interests, a robust military defense is critical.

As for our rights, the government should protect us from ourselves. For example, a business owner whose factory produces toxic waste is not always going to do the right thing. We know from factual history they will dump it into our rivers and streams and into our soil and air without any regard for the loss of human life or anyone's hurt feelings which results. There are those who believe bad press or hurt feelings will make the bad man stop what he is doing, but they are idiots.

The "Invisible Hand" has the memory retention of a goldfish. The free market is very quick to forget its fuckups, especially if it is rescued from its fuckups by the government. Each rescue ensures the next fuckup will be even bigger. If a business is made to pay for killing people, then it will actually compare the cost of a wrongful death lawsuit to the cost to fix a problem to decide whether or not to fix the problem.

Therefore, it is better to prevent fuckups than to clean up after them. Regulations should be the corporate memory of the free market.

Are there too many regulations? Yes and no. Are there not enough? Yes and no. In some areas, we over-regulate. In others, we under-regulate.

When someone argues that regulations cost businesses x trillions of dollars a year, they are choosing to ignore how much money businesses are saved by many of those regulations. It might cost you five dollars to put a guard on a bandsaw, but it saves you thousands of dollars in medical bills or lost production that you were previously experiencing. So saying a regulation to put a guard on a bandsaw is costing that business five dollars is to be willfully dishonest at best.


On the flip side, I think the Supreme Court has so distorted the the intent of the commerce clause in the Constitution as to render it completely meaningless. We have come to the point where no one can name a transaction where the federal government is excluded from interfering. We have actually arrived at a point where NOT engaging in a business transaction is actionable!

This is just plain nuts.


I also believe the government is now rewarding irresponsible behavior. Every time there is a "problem", someone immediately starts wanting to know why the government isn't spending money on it.

The "problem" is rarely defined correctly. And because the problem is mis-identified or oversimplified, any "solution" is ipso facto built upon a false premise and therefore doomed to failure, which then lead to constant "fixes" until the original problem is lost in the mists of time and the program has exploded well beyond its initially defined scope.

For example, the medically uninsured. One third of these uninsured are high school dropouts. By providing them free medical care, we are rewarding that irresponsible behavior.

The "solutions" offered are rarely correct, and are usually the product of vote pandering than sound thinking. Anyone who attempts to introduce some sanity into the situation is accused of being coldhearted and cruel and in favor of the status quo.

And so the illogic flows like this:

A. We must do something.
B. This is something.
C. We must do this.


I can go on all day, but this is a good place to stop, I guess.

.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Show us all where the constitution gives this awkward power of promoting for the general welfare...

Okie dokie. Article 1, Section 8: "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." I was in error, however, because I said "promote" when I should have said "provide".

Then when you fail to do that please explain how promoting equals providing.

Actually, the Constitution says "provide". See above.

Then when you fail to do that please explain how welfare back when the constitution was written meant something (by dictionary definition) totally different yet that translates to mean endless UE, Subsidies, SS/MC/MC…

Webster's: "the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity." Not sure about subsidies, but it seems that unemployment and the rest help people do well in respect to happiness, well-being, and/or prosperity. If you have a dictionary definition from the 1780s, let me know. (You might.)

Then when you fail to do that please give us the reason that even after getting something like 70% of the budget spend on welfare why we are falling apart as a nation and in an economic depression….

I counted 54% of US Federal budget spent on welfare, but why quibble about 16%? And the Great Recession (depression, whatever) is mainly from the housing bubble bursting, which in turn is tied to bad lending practices and people buying homes they cannot afford. Neither deals with welfare spending.

I honestly can't wait to not get a single answer from you.

Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[hortysir]

If I had a dollar for every thread that started out:
An honest question for conservatives


They rarely are, BTW

at least the questions matches the answers in that regard

No reason to take him(?) seriously yet

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

Wrong.

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

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

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

 

[del]

If I had a dollar for every thread that started out:
An honest question for conservatives


They rarely are, BTW

at least the questions matches the answers in that regard

No reason to take him(?) seriously yet

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

srsly

 

[FJO]

I don't really give a damn about your questions. It's quite a straightforward concept. Federal Government does what it is remitted to do by the Constitution, the rest it does not do. Not rocket science.

Bingo

And IF politicians, etc want to expand the responsibilities and charges of government, we have the amendment process... that amendment process is purposely made to be hard, before someone complains that it takes too much to change or add to the constitution

Seems to me, anyone who has to ask these 'questions' isn't an American. We learn this shit in school... at least in decent schools... perhaps the public education system is - again - failing?

Seems to me that the person who can ANSWER these questions in not an American.

I see on-the-street interviews with Jay Leno and Jesse Waters, just to name two sources, and I can't help but come to the inescapable conclusion that Americans are woefully and pathetically ignorant about their government, their politics and, most sadly, about their country.

Even the post I am responding to refers to American history as "this shit".

Americans don't need Michael Moore, they need Dineesh DeDouza.

 

[OODA_Loop]

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

Provide for the General Welfare of the United States.

Not indivduals.

 

[there4eyeM]

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

Wrong.

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

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

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

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

 

[wjmacguffin]

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

Provide for the General Welfare of the United States.

Not indivduals.

Interesting point, OODA. Are you arguing that the welfare of the US is divorced from the welfare of its citizens? Perhaps a better question: How do we measure the welfare of the US, not individuals?

 

[hortysir]

Bingo

And IF politicians, etc want to expand the responsibilities and charges of government, we have the amendment process... that amendment process is purposely made to be hard, before someone complains that it takes too much to change or add to the constitution

Seems to me, anyone who has to ask these 'questions' isn't an American. We learn this shit in school... at least in decent schools... perhaps the public education system is - again - failing?

Seems to me that the person who can ANSWER these questions in not an American.

I see on-the-street interviews with Jay Leno and Jesse Waters, just to name two sources, and I can't help but come to the inescapable conclusion that Americans are woefully and pathetically ignorant about their government, their politics and, most sadly, about their country.

Even the post I am responding to refers to American history as "this shit".

Americans don't need Michael Moore, they need Dineesh DeDouza.

You DO know those are edited for comedic effect, right?!

 

[eflatminor]

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

The same way the founders intended, by keeping the borders safe from invasion and the seas clear of pirates or other forces that would disrupt trade.

 

[del]

^

speaks to founders on a regular basis

 

[wjmacguffin]

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

The same way the founders intended, by keeping the borders safe from invasion and the seas clear of pirates or other forces that would disrupt trade.

Then the federal government has met its charge to provide for the general welfare when we're not being invaded and trade routes are safe? That's it? (I'm not saying you're wrong, just want to see if this is what you mean.)

 

[OODA_Loop]

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

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


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

 

[eflatminor]

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

The same way the founders intended, by keeping the borders safe from invasion and the seas clear of pirates or other forces that would disrupt trade.

Then the federal government has met its charge to provide for the general welfare when we're not being invaded and trade routes are safe? That's it? (I'm not saying you're wrong, just want to see if this is what you mean.)

In the context of 'general welfare', yes. Of course, they still have the enumerated powers to oversee.

 

[eflatminor]

^

speaks to founders on a regular basis

No, I read the Federalist Papers, which makes this point crystal clear.