Two cultures: Hunters and Gatherers vs Free Stuff

[rightwinger]

Citizen A works and has no kids
Citizen B works and has five kids

Under what authority does society have the right to take money from Citizen A to pay to educate Citizen Bs children?

Is that welfare?

Society (government) has no such authority, actually. You just perfectly enunciated the moral argument against public education.

Yes...and the alternative you are offering is anarchy

 

[Foxfyre]

The moral authority is granted in the preamble of the constitution. There's a part that goes along with "provide for the common defense' that says 'promote the general welfare'

The general welfare of the citizens of the united States suffers when some of its citizens live in poverty while others game the system and benefit beyond their capacity to enjoy.

Taxes are 'confiscated' to provide compensation to private companies, to large agricultural interests, the separate states and the bureaucracies established to serve them. There is a morality to aiding disadvantaged citizens as well.

I have not advocating providing compensation to private companies, to large agribultural intersts, or the separate states and the bureaucracies to serve them. I see that as just as unconstitutional as providing unearned compensation to private citizens. Your fourth or fifith? red herring of the day.

The Constitution indeed mandates that the federal government provide the common defense. Not for it. Provide it. Why? Because that is how our rights are secured. When we know that the government recognizes, protects, and defends our unalienable rights against all enemies, within and without, we are people truly free to live with liberty to pursue whatever will make us happy short of violating anybody else's rights.

Even the most cursory reading of the federalist and anti-federalist papers will find the Founders essentially 100% in agreement with a 'general welfare' of ALL citizens meaning what promotes benefit to all equally without prejudice and without respect for socioeconomivc, religious, or political standing. And they were all quite clear on the principle that the federal government violates unalienable rights when it confiscates lawfully and ethically acquired property from one citizen for the benefit of another.

It is no more ethical for the government to take your property and give it to me because somebody decided I needed it more than you do than it is for me to make that decision myself. It is not benevolence or charity to help people with somebody else's money.

The founding fathers never advocated that everyone must give equally or benefit equally from the general welfare provided by the government

Yes they DID advocate that everybody support the government equally by paying certain excise taxes/user fees on products and services they actually used and everybody paid the same amount for those regardless of their socioeconomic standing. But only those using the services paid.

And of course everybody won't benefit equally from anything, but they mandated that everybody, rich and poor alike, have equal opportunity to do so. If the government builds a post road to deliver the mail, all citizens, rich and poor alike, who use that road will benefit from it. Those who have no desire or need to travel that road will not benefit from it, but they could if they wantedf to, and they will be using it if they mail a letter to somebody along that route.

All of us, for instance, benefit from the interstate highway system whether we physically use it or not. It provides the same national defense capabilities for all of us. We all use products that are transported on it without regard for our sociopolitical situation or political clout.

Compare that to food stamps, for instance, that are only available to a certain economic sub group and not available to the rest of us paying taxes to provide them. However noble and well intentioned those food stamps are, the Founders would never have allowed that to happen in the federal government but would have looked to the states or local communities to do what they chose to do for the poor. They rightfully figured out that such activity from the federal government could destroy the very foundations of the freedoms provided by the Constitution as well being the corrupting influence that it in fact has become.

Bringing this back to the main topic, however.

Don't you think we have two distinct cultures? Those who see the virtues in the doctrines of the Founders and those who don't really care about any consequences of government action so long as they get their free stuff?

 

[kwc57]

So many constitutional scholars all in one place. This is certainly impressive.

Bless your little heart, does it make your tiny pea brain hurt?

 

[rightwinger]

I have not advocating providing compensation to private companies, to large agribultural intersts, or the separate states and the bureaucracies to serve them. I see that as just as unconstitutional as providing unearned compensation to private citizens. Your fourth or fifith? red herring of the day.

The Constitution indeed mandates that the federal government provide the common defense. Not for it. Provide it. Why? Because that is how our rights are secured. When we know that the government recognizes, protects, and defends our unalienable rights against all enemies, within and without, we are people truly free to live with liberty to pursue whatever will make us happy short of violating anybody else's rights.

Even the most cursory reading of the federalist and anti-federalist papers will find the Founders essentially 100% in agreement with a 'general welfare' of ALL citizens meaning what promotes benefit to all equally without prejudice and without respect for socioeconomivc, religious, or political standing. And they were all quite clear on the principle that the federal government violates unalienable rights when it confiscates lawfully and ethically acquired property from one citizen for the benefit of another.

It is no more ethical for the government to take your property and give it to me because somebody decided I needed it more than you do than it is for me to make that decision myself. It is not benevolence or charity to help people with somebody else's money.

The founding fathers never advocated that everyone must give equally or benefit equally from the general welfare provided by the government

Yes they DID advocate that everybody support the government equally by paying certain excise taxes/user fees on products and services they actually used and everybody paid the same amount for those regardless of their socioeconomic standing. But only those using the services paid.

And of course everybody won't benefit equally from anything, but they mandated that everybody, rich and poor alike, have equal opportunity to do so. If the government builds a post road to deliver the mail, all citizens, rich and poor alike, who use that road will benefit from it. Those who have no desire or need to travel that road will not benefit from it, but they could if they wantedf to, and they will be using it if they mail a letter to somebody along that route.

All of us, for instance, benefit from the interstate highway system whether we physically use it or not. It provides the same national defense capabilities for all of us. We all use products that are transported on it without regard for our sociopolitical situation or political clout.

Compare that to food stamps, for instance, that are only available to a certain economic sub group and not available to the rest of us paying taxes to provide them. However noble and well intentioned those food stamps are, the Founders would never have allowed that to happen in the federal government but would have looked to the states or local communities to do what they chose to do for the poor. They rightfully figured out that such activity from the federal government could destroy the very foundations of the freedoms provided by the Constitution as well being the corrupting influence that it in fact has become.

Bringing this back to the main topic, however.

Don't you think we have two distinct cultures? Those who see the virtues in the doctrines of the Founders and those who don't really care about any consequences of government action so long as they get their free stuff?

The founders were a bunch of awesome dudes.......but no, I don't trust them in making decisions on how to run a 21st century superpower in a global marketplace

The founders never intended to tell future societies on what their government could do for them. They only provided a general framework of that government and left it to future generations to decide what is best for them. That includes welfare, social security, Medicare and landing on the moon

 

[Foxfyre]

The founding fathers never advocated that everyone must give equally or benefit equally from the general welfare provided by the government

Yes they DID advocate that everybody support the government equally by paying certain excise taxes/user fees on products and services they actually used and everybody paid the same amount for those regardless of their socioeconomic standing. But only those using the services paid.

And of course everybody won't benefit equally from anything, but they mandated that everybody, rich and poor alike, have equal opportunity to do so. If the government builds a post road to deliver the mail, all citizens, rich and poor alike, who use that road will benefit from it. Those who have no desire or need to travel that road will not benefit from it, but they could if they wantedf to, and they will be using it if they mail a letter to somebody along that route.

All of us, for instance, benefit from the interstate highway system whether we physically use it or not. It provides the same national defense capabilities for all of us. We all use products that are transported on it without regard for our sociopolitical situation or political clout.

Compare that to food stamps, for instance, that are only available to a certain economic sub group and not available to the rest of us paying taxes to provide them. However noble and well intentioned those food stamps are, the Founders would never have allowed that to happen in the federal government but would have looked to the states or local communities to do what they chose to do for the poor. They rightfully figured out that such activity from the federal government could destroy the very foundations of the freedoms provided by the Constitution as well being the corrupting influence that it in fact has become.

Bringing this back to the main topic, however.

Don't you think we have two distinct cultures? Those who see the virtues in the doctrines of the Founders and those who don't really care about any consequences of government action so long as they get their free stuff?

The founders were a bunch of awesome dudes.......but no, I don't trust them in making decisions on how to run a 21st century superpower in a global marketplace

The founders never intended to tell future societies on what their government could do for them. They only provided a general framework of that government and left it to future generations to decide what is best for them. That includes welfare, social security, Medicare and landing on the moon

The Founders really weren't concerned with what social structures the people would develop within the freedom afforded by the Constitution. They, almost to a man, believed that only a mostly religious and moral people would benefit from that freedom and would be able to sustain it.

But, mostly to a man, they were absolutely of one accord that social services were not the prerogative of the federal government to dictate or administrate. They had seen the blood of thousands of men shed and they all had risked all their personal property and their very lives in order to give us the Constitution that we have. The Constitution was to wrest us from the corrupting and oppressive authority of any monarch, pope, or other authoritarian government and secure our rights so that we would be the first people in the history of the world to have the liberty to govern ourselves.

Don't you think we now have a new culture that is developed in America willing to ignore all that and ignore any consequences of government action so long as they can count on getting their free stuff?

 

[kwc57]

The founding fathers never advocated that everyone must give equally or benefit equally from the general welfare provided by the government

Yes they DID advocate that everybody support the government equally by paying certain excise taxes/user fees on products and services they actually used and everybody paid the same amount for those regardless of their socioeconomic standing. But only those using the services paid.

And of course everybody won't benefit equally from anything, but they mandated that everybody, rich and poor alike, have equal opportunity to do so. If the government builds a post road to deliver the mail, all citizens, rich and poor alike, who use that road will benefit from it. Those who have no desire or need to travel that road will not benefit from it, but they could if they wantedf to, and they will be using it if they mail a letter to somebody along that route.

All of us, for instance, benefit from the interstate highway system whether we physically use it or not. It provides the same national defense capabilities for all of us. We all use products that are transported on it without regard for our sociopolitical situation or political clout.

Compare that to food stamps, for instance, that are only available to a certain economic sub group and not available to the rest of us paying taxes to provide them. However noble and well intentioned those food stamps are, the Founders would never have allowed that to happen in the federal government but would have looked to the states or local communities to do what they chose to do for the poor. They rightfully figured out that such activity from the federal government could destroy the very foundations of the freedoms provided by the Constitution as well being the corrupting influence that it in fact has become.

Bringing this back to the main topic, however.

Don't you think we have two distinct cultures? Those who see the virtues in the doctrines of the Founders and those who don't really care about any consequences of government action so long as they get their free stuff?

The founders were a bunch of awesome dudes.......but no, I don't trust them in making decisions on how to run a 21st century superpower in a global marketplace

The founders never intended to tell future societies on what their government could do for them. They only provided a general framework of that government and left it to future generations to decide what is best for them. That includes welfare, social security, Medicare and landing on the moon

Pardon me? Where did you get that crazy idea? You know, I kind of see the Constitution like I see the Boy Scout Oath and Law. In a Troop, there is always some well meaning adult who thinks we need to create a set of Troop bylaws that often runs 20 or 30 pages long full of do's and dont's. In actuality, all of their rules and regulations are covered completely by:

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

and

A Scout is:
Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful,
Friendly, Courteous, Kind,
Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty,
Brave, Clean, Reverent

Why is it that liberals think the Constitution is outdated and does not speak to our current generation in the 21st century. It does. It is a law that has stood the test of time and by which one can very easily look at it and determine whether what a well meaning politician wants to do is constitutional or not. We are a nation of laws and the Constitution is the supreme law to which all others are subject. If it needs to change, there is a method to do so.

 

[MikeK]

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?)

What you're presenting here is a rather persistent theme put forth by such neo-Conservative propagandists as Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Levin, et. al. What it suggests is the U.S. has become a fully developed socialist entity in which any citizen who chooses not to work for a living is provided all of the necessities and basic comforts upon request. But if this were true how do we account for the rising number of homeless Americans, many of whom are living in their cars, the emergence of tent cities, charity shelters and food distribution centers all over the Nation?

While some Americans are fortunate enough to qualify for some level of public assistance or unemployment insurance, which is barely enough to keep a roof over their heads and afford a Ramen Noodles diet, an increasing number are not so fortunate and segments of American society are beginning to replicate conditions of the Great Depression. More and more formerly productive citizens are falling through the cracks produced by tampering with the social structure put in place by FDR's New Deal.

And while there is no question that a percentage of those Americans who are receiving some form of public assistance are un-deserving slackers (the inevitable "ten percent") who are always with us, the vast majority of those who receive benefits of one kind or another are entitled to them by one form of contributive participation or another, or are deemed by their circumstances to be genuinely in need of and deserving of public assistance.

And it must be kept in mind that failure of society to provide assistance to its deserving unfortunates will result in thousands of citizens dying on the streets from sickness and/or exposure -- as was the case during the Depression.

That is not what we want in America.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?)

What you're presenting here is a rather persistent theme put forth by such neo-Conservative propagandists as Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Levin, et. al. What it suggests is the U.S. has become a fully developed socialist entity in which any citizen who chooses not to work for a living is provided all of the necessities and basic comforts upon request. But if this were true how do we account for the rising number of homeless Americans, many of whom are living in their cars, the emergence of tent cities, charity shelters and food distribution centers all over the Nation?

While some Americans are fortunate enough to qualify for some level of public assistance or unemployment insurance, which is barely enough to keep a roof over their heads and afford a Ramen Noodles diet, an increasing number are not so fortunate and segments of American society are beginning to replicate conditions in the Great Depression. More and more formerly productive citizens are falling through the cracks produced by tampering with the social structure put in place by FDR's New Deal.

And while there is no question that a percentage of those Americans who are receiving some form of public assistance are un-deserving slackers (the inevitable "ten percent") who are always with us, the vast majority of those who receive benefits of one kind or another are entitled to them by one form of contributive participation or another, or are deemed by their circumstances to be genuinely in need of and deserving of public assistance.

And it must be kept in mind that failure of society to provide assistance to its deserving unfortunates will result in thousands of citizens dying on the streets from sickness and/or exposure -- as was the case during the Depression.

That is not what we want in America.

Well first, let's assume--and it is a HUGE assumption--that the federal government is the ONLY entity that can address those deplorable situations that you describe. After all it has done such a great job addressing it with the more than $10 trillion dollars expended to remedy it since the 1960's War on Poverty, not even considering FDR's "New Deal".

But going with your assumption here that the states and local governments would not do the job anywhere nearly as well, despite of the fact, in your own words, that the situation is worsening, let's go back to the initial issue in the OP.

One culture in America is the ongoing American exceptionalism group that in varying degrees holds on to the idea that we should be encouraging the principle of pulling one's own weight and earning what we have.

The other culture in America is the group that is pretty much shrugging off enormous deficits, an ever increasing crushing national debt, and any reported negative consequences of government action so long as they can keep counting on the government shoveling out free stuff.

Do you think that situation is healthy for any of us? If so just say so and we'll move on.

If not, please say what you think the remedy to this situation is.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes they DID advocate that everybody support the government equally by paying certain excise taxes/user fees on products and services they actually used and everybody paid the same amount for those regardless of their socioeconomic standing. But only those using the services paid.

And of course everybody won't benefit equally from anything, but they mandated that everybody, rich and poor alike, have equal opportunity to do so. If the government builds a post road to deliver the mail, all citizens, rich and poor alike, who use that road will benefit from it. Those who have no desire or need to travel that road will not benefit from it, but they could if they wantedf to, and they will be using it if they mail a letter to somebody along that route.

All of us, for instance, benefit from the interstate highway system whether we physically use it or not. It provides the same national defense capabilities for all of us. We all use products that are transported on it without regard for our sociopolitical situation or political clout.

Compare that to food stamps, for instance, that are only available to a certain economic sub group and not available to the rest of us paying taxes to provide them. However noble and well intentioned those food stamps are, the Founders would never have allowed that to happen in the federal government but would have looked to the states or local communities to do what they chose to do for the poor. They rightfully figured out that such activity from the federal government could destroy the very foundations of the freedoms provided by the Constitution as well being the corrupting influence that it in fact has become.

Bringing this back to the main topic, however.

Don't you think we have two distinct cultures? Those who see the virtues in the doctrines of the Founders and those who don't really care about any consequences of government action so long as they get their free stuff?

The founders were a bunch of awesome dudes.......but no, I don't trust them in making decisions on how to run a 21st century superpower in a global marketplace

The founders never intended to tell future societies on what their government could do for them. They only provided a general framework of that government and left it to future generations to decide what is best for them. That includes welfare, social security, Medicare and landing on the moon

The Founders really weren't concerned with what social structures the people would develop within the freedom afforded by the Constitution. They, almost to a man, believed that only a mostly religious and moral people would benefit from that freedom and would be able to sustain it.

But, mostly to a man, they were absolutely of one accord that social services were not the prerogative of the federal government to dictate or administrate. They had seen the blood of thousands of men shed and they all had risked all their personal property and their very lives in order to give us the Constitution that we have. The Constitution was to wrest us from the corrupting and oppressive authority of any monarch, pope, or other authoritarian government and secure our rights so that we would be the first people in the history of the world to have the liberty to govern ourselves.

Don't you think we now have a new culture that is developed in America willing to ignore all that and ignore any consequences of government action so long as they can count on getting their free stuff?

They still believed in slavery....who the **** cares what they thought about social services?

It was the 18th century........before even Dickens

Please sir, may I have some more?

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

The moral authority is granted in the preamble of the constitution. There's a part that goes along with "provide for the common defense' that says 'promote the general welfare'

The general welfare of the citizens of the united States suffers when some of its citizens live in poverty while others game the system and benefit beyond their capacity to enjoy.

Taxes are 'confiscated' to provide compensation to private companies, to large agricultural interests, the separate states and the bureaucracies established to serve them. There is a morality to aiding disadvantaged citizens as well.

I have not advocating providing compensation to private companies, to large agribultural intersts, or the separate states and the bureaucracies to serve them. I see that as just as unconstitutional as providing unearned compensation to private citizens. Your fourth or fifith? red herring of the day.

The Constitution indeed mandates that the federal government provide the common defense. Not for it. Provide it. Why? Because that is how our rights are secured. When we know that the government recognizes, protects, and defends our unalienable rights against all enemies, within and without, we are people truly free to live with liberty to pursue whatever will make us happy short of violating anybody else's rights.

Even the most cursory reading of the federalist and anti-federalist papers will find the Founders essentially 100% in agreement with a 'general welfare' of ALL citizens meaning what promotes benefit to all equally without prejudice and without respect for socioeconomivc, religious, or political standing. And they were all quite clear on the principle that the federal government violates unalienable rights when it confiscates lawfully and ethically acquired property from one citizen for the benefit of another.

It is no more ethical for the government to take your property and give it to me because somebody decided I needed it more than you do than it is for me to make that decision myself. It is not benevolence or charity to help people with somebody else's money.

Once you squeeze the toothpaste from the tube, it's pretty damn dicey to get it back in. If you want to end entitlement spending on moral, amoral, or constitutional grounds, you must then cut the spending that benefits the very few.

It serves no purpose to further divide Americans on an economic, political, or class basis. We're divided enough.

What chafes is the very basis of your questions. They are designed to create indifference between socio-economic classes. Indifference seems so un-American. Not when we see CARE packages opened in some drought stricken hell hole in Africa. Not when we see healthy children in a Head Start center. Not when we see our parents enjoy their retirement in dignity rather than poverty and squalor.

If you want to talk about the constitutionality of entitlements, then the largess extended to corporate, agricultural interests (that reads redundant in the 21st century), the separate states (wait to you hear THEM howl!) has to end too. If the poor are to suffer, there's no nobility in continuing subsidies for the well off.

So you see, they're not 'red herrings'. They are the consequence of eliminating entitlements on the basis you established.

 

[California Girl]

What I find just AWESOME is how CONZ rail that no one should be protected against losing their homes if they get sick or lose their jobs like those socialists in Europe get. Heaven forfend people be unburdened by FEAR. What will CONZ use to control you if not FEAR?

I hate to burst anyone's bubble but people in Europe do, in fact, lose their homes if they get sick or lose their jobs and chose not to have insurance to cover those possibilities.

You think Europe is so much better than us? They don't. You think they don't suffer as much or more than Americans? They do.

Heading down the European road will not help. They're fucked, often far worse than we are. You might want to google 'Greece in flames' and take a look at what a clusterfuck that country is. Know why? They grew their public sector disproportionately to their private sector.

This country was supposed to be unique in the world. A really free society.... when we were that... the world looked on with envy. It is only since we started this pandering nanny state crap that we began to struggle.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Check all that apply: Adult Americans have a rigfht to be provided with…

Deliver us from the rightist ideologues, jeez…

 

[PoliticalChic]

The founders were a bunch of awesome dudes.......but no, I don't trust them in making decisions on how to run a 21st century superpower in a global marketplace

The founders never intended to tell future societies on what their government could do for them. They only provided a general framework of that government and left it to future generations to decide what is best for them. That includes welfare, social security, Medicare and landing on the moon

The Founders really weren't concerned with what social structures the people would develop within the freedom afforded by the Constitution. They, almost to a man, believed that only a mostly religious and moral people would benefit from that freedom and would be able to sustain it.

But, mostly to a man, they were absolutely of one accord that social services were not the prerogative of the federal government to dictate or administrate. They had seen the blood of thousands of men shed and they all had risked all their personal property and their very lives in order to give us the Constitution that we have. The Constitution was to wrest us from the corrupting and oppressive authority of any monarch, pope, or other authoritarian government and secure our rights so that we would be the first people in the history of the world to have the liberty to govern ourselves.

Don't you think we now have a new culture that is developed in America willing to ignore all that and ignore any consequences of government action so long as they can count on getting their free stuff?

They still believed in slavery....who the **** cares what they thought about social services?

It was the 18th century........before even Dickens

During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton's work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamilton.
Alexander Hamilton and the New York Manumission Society | Everyday Citizen

John Jay founded the New-York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been, or May be Liberated or the New York Manumission Society, and became its first president in 1785.
New York Manumission Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society.
Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

In Philadelphia at the start of the Revolution, Quakers founded the Society for Promoting Abolition of Slavery and Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. Franklin would become its president in 1787. In Pennsylvania and New York, Quaker congregations began to expel slave owners. Methodists, on fire from the revivalist Great Awakening, came to see God's love and freedom as universals, and preachers set out to convert blacks. Methodists voted to remove slaveholders from church membership.
Finding Slaves in Unexpected Places : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Site

It would be four years before New Hampshire acted, but Vermont moved quickly and freed its slaves in 1777. Soon, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island began gradual emancipation. By the 1790 census, there were no slaves to be counted in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
Ibid.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders really weren't concerned with what social structures the people would develop within the freedom afforded by the Constitution. They, almost to a man, believed that only a mostly religious and moral people would benefit from that freedom and would be able to sustain it.

But, mostly to a man, they were absolutely of one accord that social services were not the prerogative of the federal government to dictate or administrate. They had seen the blood of thousands of men shed and they all had risked all their personal property and their very lives in order to give us the Constitution that we have. The Constitution was to wrest us from the corrupting and oppressive authority of any monarch, pope, or other authoritarian government and secure our rights so that we would be the first people in the history of the world to have the liberty to govern ourselves.

Don't you think we now have a new culture that is developed in America willing to ignore all that and ignore any consequences of government action so long as they can count on getting their free stuff?

They still believed in slavery....who the **** cares what they thought about social services?

It was the 18th century........before even Dickens

During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton's work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamilton.
Alexander Hamilton and the New York Manumission Society | Everyday Citizen

John Jay founded the New-York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been, or May be Liberated or the New York Manumission Society, and became its first president in 1785.
New York Manumission Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society.
Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

In Philadelphia at the start of the Revolution, Quakers founded the Society for Promoting Abolition of Slavery and Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. Franklin would become its president in 1787. In Pennsylvania and New York, Quaker congregations began to expel slave owners. Methodists, on fire from the revivalist Great Awakening, came to see God's love and freedom as universals, and preachers set out to convert blacks. Methodists voted to remove slaveholders from church membership.
Finding Slaves in Unexpected Places : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Site

It would be four years before New Hampshire acted, but Vermont moved quickly and freed its slaves in 1777. Soon, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island began gradual emancipation. By the 1790 census, there were no slaves to be counted in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
Ibid.

Yup. Actually most of the Founders did not own slaves and I believe a plurality were openly anti-slavery. It could have become a compelling issue in the founding of the nation, but the issue was set aside in favor of a strong and unified nation as being the top priority when the Constitution was founded. It was more important to incorporate the minority of slave states than to abolish slavery at that time.

The Founders trusted a mostly moral and religious people to do the right things in self governance and indeed the people did get around to doing the right thing almost everywhere. It was through private efforts, not government dictates, that most of the reforms happened. Theocracies in some of the colonies were abolished and punative, sometimes deadly activities of the church were outlawed everywhere.

It was a grass roots effort that promoted women's suffrage and eventually a Constitutional amendment giving women the vote. Ditto for the abolition of slavery that would not have happened without pressure from the people themselves. Such grass roots movements have generally produced very good long range results. Those dictated from the government down almost always have had far more negative consequences.

 

[rightwinger]

The Founders really weren't concerned with what social structures the people would develop within the freedom afforded by the Constitution. They, almost to a man, believed that only a mostly religious and moral people would benefit from that freedom and would be able to sustain it.

But, mostly to a man, they were absolutely of one accord that social services were not the prerogative of the federal government to dictate or administrate. They had seen the blood of thousands of men shed and they all had risked all their personal property and their very lives in order to give us the Constitution that we have. The Constitution was to wrest us from the corrupting and oppressive authority of any monarch, pope, or other authoritarian government and secure our rights so that we would be the first people in the history of the world to have the liberty to govern ourselves.

Don't you think we now have a new culture that is developed in America willing to ignore all that and ignore any consequences of government action so long as they can count on getting their free stuff?

They still believed in slavery....who the **** cares what they thought about social services?

It was the 18th century........before even Dickens

During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton's work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamilton.
Alexander Hamilton and the New York Manumission Society | Everyday Citizen

John Jay founded the New-York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been, or May be Liberated or the New York Manumission Society, and became its first president in 1785.
New York Manumission Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society.
Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

In Philadelphia at the start of the Revolution, Quakers founded the Society for Promoting Abolition of Slavery and Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. Franklin would become its president in 1787. In Pennsylvania and New York, Quaker congregations began to expel slave owners. Methodists, on fire from the revivalist Great Awakening, came to see God's love and freedom as universals, and preachers set out to convert blacks. Methodists voted to remove slaveholders from church membership.
Finding Slaves in Unexpected Places : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Site

It would be four years before New Hampshire acted, but Vermont moved quickly and freed its slaves in 1777. Soon, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island began gradual emancipation. By the 1790 census, there were no slaves to be counted in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
Ibid.

Sorry....but our Founding Fathers screwed the pooch when it came to slavery and human rights in general. But what the heck.....it was the 18th century what did they know about human rights?

They started a progression that eventually lead to the liberties we enjoy today but it was future generations that eventually granted those liberties

That is why we cannot take the writings of the founding fathers as gospel. They could never comprehend the complexities of our society .....why would we want them to make decisions for us?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes...and the alternative you are offering is anarchy

Yes I am, but that doesn't mean the war of all against all. It means no govenrment to rob you, coerce you or corrupt society.

 

[MikeK]

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?)

What you're presenting here is a rather persistent theme put forth by such neo-Conservative propagandists as Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Levin, et. al. What it suggests is the U.S. has become a fully developed socialist entity in which any citizen who chooses not to work for a living is provided all of the necessities and basic comforts upon request. But if this were true how do we account for the rising number of homeless Americans, many of whom are living in their cars, the emergence of tent cities, charity shelters and food distribution centers all over the Nation?

While some Americans are fortunate enough to qualify for some level of public assistance or unemployment insurance, which is barely enough to keep a roof over their heads and afford a Ramen Noodles diet, an increasing number are not so fortunate and segments of American society are beginning to replicate conditions in the Great Depression. More and more formerly productive citizens are falling through the cracks produced by tampering with the social structure put in place by FDR's New Deal.

And while there is no question that a percentage of those Americans who are receiving some form of public assistance are un-deserving slackers (the inevitable "ten percent") who are always with us, the vast majority of those who receive benefits of one kind or another are entitled to them by one form of contributive participation or another, or are deemed by their circumstances to be genuinely in need of and deserving of public assistance.

And it must be kept in mind that failure of society to provide assistance to its deserving unfortunates will result in thousands of citizens dying on the streets from sickness and/or exposure -- as was the case during the Depression.

That is not what we want in America.

Well first, let's assume--and it is a HUGE assumption--that the federal government is the ONLY entity that can address those deplorable situations that you describe. After all it has done such a great job addressing it with the more than $10 trillion dollars expended to remedy it since the 1960's War on Poverty, not even considering FDR's "New Deal".

But going with your assumption here that the states and local governments would not do the job anywhere nearly as well, despite of the fact, in your own words, that the situation is worsening, let's go back to the initial issue in the OP.

One culture in America is the ongoing American exceptionalism group that in varying degrees holds on to the idea that we should be encouraging the principle of pulling one's own weight and earning what we have.

The other culture in America is the group that is pretty much shrugging off enormous deficits, an ever increasing crushing national debt, and any reported negative consequences of government action so long as they can keep counting on the government shoveling out free stuff.

Do you think that situation is healthy for any of us? If so just say so and we'll move on.

If not, please say what you think the remedy to this situation is.

I believe the following steps are necessary to pull us out of the hole we've fallen into:


1) Restore the progressive income tax rate FDR put in place. It can be sensibly reduced again when the economy stabilizes (as Eisenhower did in the 60s).

2) Legislate against American jobs being exported to foreign countries.

3) Put an end to illegal immigration by implementing a biometric citizen ID card and requiring all employers to ensure their employees are citizens or have proper Guest Worker documentation.

4) Implement make-work programs (as per FDR's CCC and WPA) repairing our infrastructure, creating an interstate high-speed rail system, and vastly expanding internal public transportation systems. In other words, put Americans back to work in the same way FDR did it.

5) Impose appropriate tariffs on all imported merchandise.

6) Impose punitive tariffs on all turncoat American corporations producing merchandise in foreign countries for sale in the U.S.

7) Impose 1 - 5 cent tax on stock transactions (depending on type).

8) Conduct intensive investigations of all banks engaged in sub-prime mortgage transactions and issue criminal indictments with intent to impose massive fines for all misconduct.

9) Withdraw all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

10) Put an end to off-shore tax havens and legislate to seize undeclared off-shore holdings.


I'm sure there are more we can do. But those ten will be a good start. Additions will be appreciated.

 

[Foxfyre]

They still believed in slavery....who the **** cares what they thought about social services?

It was the 18th century........before even Dickens

During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton's work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamilton.
Alexander Hamilton and the New York Manumission Society | Everyday Citizen

John Jay founded the New-York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been, or May be Liberated or the New York Manumission Society, and became its first president in 1785.
New York Manumission Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society.
Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

In Philadelphia at the start of the Revolution, Quakers founded the Society for Promoting Abolition of Slavery and Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. Franklin would become its president in 1787. In Pennsylvania and New York, Quaker congregations began to expel slave owners. Methodists, on fire from the revivalist Great Awakening, came to see God's love and freedom as universals, and preachers set out to convert blacks. Methodists voted to remove slaveholders from church membership.
Finding Slaves in Unexpected Places : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Site

It would be four years before New Hampshire acted, but Vermont moved quickly and freed its slaves in 1777. Soon, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island began gradual emancipation. By the 1790 census, there were no slaves to be counted in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
Ibid.

Sorry....but our Founding Fathers screwed the pooch when it came to slavery and human rights in general. But what the heck.....it was the 18th century what did they know about human rights?

They started a progression that eventually lead to the liberties we enjoy today but it was future generations that eventually granted those liberties

That is why we cannot take the writings of the founding fathers as gospel. They could never comprehend the complexities of our society .....why would we want them to make decisions for us?

A solid principle is a solid principle that remains a solid principle through all the ages. It does not erode or change or decay with time.

The writings of the Founders help us to understand the rationale behind the principles they set forth and embodied in the Constitution. That rationale is every bit as fresh, and on the mark, and pertinent as it was the day the Constitution was ratified.

I think some of those in the culture of free stuff are doing their damndest to tear down the principles the Founders gave us. They don't want us to respect or honor those men or trust what they say. They want us to throw it all out in favor of what they call the new realities of the modern age.

I think they do this because they know that if we do relearn the value of those Founding principles, the idea of earning what you get might catch on again. And the government might stop stop exchanging lots of free stuff in return for votes with no questions asked.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They still believed in slavery....who the **** cares what they thought about social services?

It was the 18th century........before even Dickens

During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton's work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamilton.
Alexander Hamilton and the New York Manumission Society | Everyday Citizen

John Jay founded the New-York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been, or May be Liberated or the New York Manumission Society, and became its first president in 1785.
New York Manumission Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society.
Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

In Philadelphia at the start of the Revolution, Quakers founded the Society for Promoting Abolition of Slavery and Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. Franklin would become its president in 1787. In Pennsylvania and New York, Quaker congregations began to expel slave owners. Methodists, on fire from the revivalist Great Awakening, came to see God's love and freedom as universals, and preachers set out to convert blacks. Methodists voted to remove slaveholders from church membership.
Finding Slaves in Unexpected Places : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Site

It would be four years before New Hampshire acted, but Vermont moved quickly and freed its slaves in 1777. Soon, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island began gradual emancipation. By the 1790 census, there were no slaves to be counted in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
Ibid.

Sorry....but our Founding Fathers screwed the pooch when it came to slavery and human rights in general. But what the heck.....it was the 18th century what did they know about human rights?

They started a progression that eventually lead to the liberties we enjoy today but it was future generations that eventually granted those liberties

That is why we cannot take the writings of the founding fathers as gospel. They could never comprehend the complexities of our society .....why would we want them to make decisions for us?

Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”

 

[Pheonixops]

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?)

None of the above. There's no "right" per se, but I think there would be a great deal of suffering, crime, civil unrest, etc. if there was no "safety net" so to speak.