The purpose of government

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Interesting, It seems that America bashing is somewhat acceptable and if someone doesn't like it , well, I guess they just get their panties in a bunch far too easily, but let me talk critical of Socialism and all of it's kissing cousins and boy do you have a fit!
I am curious about something though, why is it so important to other countries that we ( the USA ) be more socialistic in nature and less independent?

---

It's not. I didn't say it was. I just said that socialism yes or no is not the biggest problem the USA is facing.

My main criticism to your government is about its foreign policies.
What you do internally is of course your own business.

We have socialism (partially) and I am happy with it.
I think it is the best way to run things like healthcare, but I don't think the US should adopt it (or that it should not). It is none of my business how the US is run internally.

To me the only issue is foreign policy. Since I am at the receiving end of that, I think it is not unreasonable to express my views.

But since the first posts also discussed the elections, I threw in my 2ct about that as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

I know this and I know Bruno well enough (I consider him a friend) to use his statement to make a point ---- I don't think he really thought all of America would change government philosophy because one nice guy from Belgium said so ----

Justin

---

I could ask nicely :)

pretty please, with sugar on top...

:roflmao

I guess I'm still not clear is it the federal or the local governments we are talking? Clearly it's about US.

There are few governments that do not collect taxes and it seems quite unlikely that the US federal government can 'protect the freedoms of the citizens' by getting funded through charitable donations.

However I don't think that the constitution was ever intended to be the only document governing the federal government. It is a framework that sets the basics, but the elected government officials are the ones who decide what the role of the government actually is. The way it's set by the constitution your freedom affecting the way government works is the freedom to vote those officials.

So, the fact that the government does what it does is just a reflection on what the majority (in the loose sense of the word) of the voting population wants.

I think the system that was set up is reasonably good, but I don't think anybody will disagree that it's not perfect. The people that came up with this framework are long dead, and the society is quite different now than back then (women and blacks have the right to vote), so the government is also quite different.

The point is that the original constitution is not good enough. So far there are 27 amendments, 18th and 21st of which establish and repeal the prohibition, 13th is the abolition of slavery - were the slaves not people with the same self evident rights/freedoms before that?

But again are all current federal government programs all bad? We may not be able to make this postings if the US government hadn't collected money at the point of the gun from US citizens and developed DARPAnet and then released it to the public. If the federal government didn't spend some of the money it collects at the point on the gun to give it away as forced charity to students the US will not have the technological position it has right now. And if you think that the businesses can do or will do the innovations from government funded research on their own if only the government just left them the money, you can't be more wrong.

BTW my country has gone through 3 or 4 completely different constitutions over the last 130 years. And some of them were apparently quite good, yet only the current reflects the current society.

:OT
And suddenly this thread travels back in time.
the last posts are from yesterday, even though they were only posted an hour ago.

Still something wrong with the forum time it seems...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

...it seems quite unlikely that the US federal government can 'protect the freedoms of the citizens' by getting funded through charitable donations.
Obviously governments are not supported by charity. What we were talking about is that government should not be the source of charity.

However I don't think that the constitution was ever intended to be the only document governing the federal government.
You know, that is exactly what it is. It is the law of the land that chains the government from encroaching into areas unintended by the founders. It is not a flexible, changin thing. If it were it would be called a Suggestion and not a Constitution which is supposed to be very strict.

It is a framework that sets the basics, but the elected government officials are the ones who decide what the role of the government actually is. The way it's set by the constitution your freedom affecting the way government works is the freedom to vote those officials.

So, the fact that the government does what it does is just a reflection on what the majority (in the loose sense of the word) of the voting population wants.
That is a direct democracy - or mob rule. See my signature line for a definition by our own Ben Franklin. We don't have a democracy but a Constitutional Representative Republic. This was designed to protect the individual from the majority which could vote to persecute the minority.

I think the system that was set up is reasonably good, but I don't think anybody will disagree that it's not perfect.
I would be the first to say that nothing made by man is perfect. That is why I trust in freedom for the individual yields competition which always ends up producing the best products at the lowest price. Combined with individual altruistic motivation to support the charities of your choice.
The people that came up with this framework are long dead, and the society is quite different now than back then (women and blacks have the right to vote), so the government is also quite different.

The point is that the original constitution is not good enough. So far there are 27 amendments, 18th and 21st of which establish and repeal the prohibition, 13th is the abolition of slavery - were the slaves not people with the same self evident rights/freedoms before that?
Of course not, and the Constitution does provide for changes to be made to it. It's difficult, but by law, must be done.

But again are all current federal government programs all bad? We may not be able to make this postings if the US government hadn't collected money at the point of the gun from US citizens and developed DARPAnet and then released it to the public. If the federal government didn't spend some of the money it collects at the point on the gun to give it away as forced charity to students the US will not have the technological position it has right now. So no one was educated before Pell Grants? And if you think that the businesses can do or will do the innovations from government funded research on their own if only the government just left them the money, you can't be more wrong. By having the government's nose in everything, you end up with legislators being able to tell scientists what they can research (heard about the stem cell debacle - it's not a problem in a non-government funded lab, but because they accept gov funds, they are LIMITED by legislators).


BTW my country has gone through 3 or 4 completely different constitutions over the last 130 years. And some of them were apparently quite good, yet only the current reflects the current society.

---

I have added a few comments...

I really wonder where you guys come up with what the constitution says.... Don't you read it? The first article establishes the legislative branch which is in charge to make more federal laws. If the US federal government was meant to be governed only by the constitution there would be no need for the legislative branch, unless when it's time for amendments.

You are mistaking 'majority (in the loose sense of the word)' for mob rule. I put the clause so that I don't have to add two more sentences. Yes it is representative democracy but as I said the rules are made by certain majority of the elected representatives (2/3 is enough to pass anything) so they do reflect in a loose sense the majority of the voters who elect them. Not in the mob rule sense, of course.

I did not say that education is impossible w/o the government's interference. What I said was that w/o the government's interference US will not be the world's technological leader. Proof - impossible. You will find that there are + and -, I believe the + far outweight the -. As you said any private business can do their own unaffected research as long as they don't take money from the government (well, I'm not sure if cloning humans is legal or should be, or that it isn't done anyways). Yes if the government would take less money from them to then use for whatever research they want, the business would have more money to spend on the research they want, yet as I said I think the government's role is on average positive, not negative.

Quote:

---

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 defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

---

follows a list of other powers/things to spend the money on and concludes with

Quote:

---

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

---

So if you read the explicitly stated powers i.e. what thelegislation should be, you can notice few things:
- army, navy, militia covered, yet airforce isn't and neither is NASA - we ought to go by the spirit then, not the letter, unless there are to be put amendments for everything
- science, arts, technology are mentioned, but only as far as providing copyright/patents
- to establish roads and post offices
- to borrow money and pay the debts

There's an explicit authorization to collect taxes at the point of the gun for these purposes, the structure of which taxes is left arbitrary as long as it's uniform across the states. There is no explicit authorization to spend these taxes on anything that's not mentioned, but you will note that this is not an exclusive list, just the one that seemed appropriate at that time.

So yeah, I've read the US constitution several times and it's interesting document, but often it seems as inspired and inspiring as the book of Numbers in the Bible.

It's not a holy document and it seems the Founding Fathers are quite racist by our current standards, as they seem to recognize the obvious rights/freedoms only when they refer to white people. They established a very progressive system for the time and a mechanism to improve on it as the society evolves. If a year from now 70% of the elected members of congress feel that providing some form of national health insurance counts as a 'general welfare of US' then that's what's going to happen, and whoever doesn't like it can either suck it up and start figuring out how to convince enough people in the opposite so that it can be changed in the future, or they can pack their bags and find another free country that's willing to accept them. That's just how things work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

Read some Milton Friedman. There is a good case being made that the creation of the Federal Reserve was directly responsible for the Great Depression.

And to whoever said Social Security was a positive side-effect, I can't disagree more. Social(ist) Security is WAY less efficient than privately investing, it sickens me that Uncle Sam thinks he should take my money and invest it for me. If that gov't can't trust me to be wise enough to handle my own retirement finances, why the HELL should I trust the gov't at all?

---

For anyone who cares to read:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/T...imulus_package

Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

For anyone who cares to read:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/T...imulus_package

Justin

---

Thomas Sowell is one of my favorites!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Thomas Sowell is one of my favorites!

---

He's an impressive individual --- from orphan in the South to PHD from the University of Chicago to influential conservative writer -------- he's a straight shooter.

Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I really wonder where you guys come up with what the constitution says.... Don't you read it? The first article establishes the legislative branch which is in charge to make more federal laws. If the US federal government was meant to be governed only by the constitution there would be no need for the legislative branch, unless when it's time for amendments.

You are mistaking 'majority (in the loose sense of the word)' for mob rule. I put the clause so that I don't have to add two more sentences. Yes it is representative democracy but as I said the rules are made by certain majority of the elected representatives (2/3 is enough to pass anything) so they do reflect in a loose sense the majority of the voters who elect them. Not in the mob rule sense, of course.

I did not say that education is impossible w/o the government's interference. What I said was that w/o the government's interference US will not be the world's technological leader. Proof - impossible. You will find that there are + and -, I believe the + far outweight the -. As you said any private business can do their own unaffected research as long as they don't take money from the government (well, I'm not sure if cloning humans is legal or should be, or that it isn't done anyways). Yes if the government would take less money from them to then use for whatever research they want, the business would have more money to spend on the research they want, yet as I said I think the government's role is on average positive, not negative.


follows a list of other powers/things to spend the money on and concludes with


So if you read the explicitly stated powers i.e. what thelegislation should be, you can notice few things:
- army, navy, militia covered, yet airforce isn't and neither is NASA - we ought to go by the spirit then, not the letter, unless there are to be put amendments for everything
- science, arts, technology are mentioned, but only as far as providing copyright/patents
- to establish roads and post offices
- to borrow money and pay the debts

There's an explicit authorization to collect taxes at the point of the gun for these purposes, the structure of which taxes is left arbitrary as long as it's uniform across the states. There is no explicit authorization to spend these taxes on anything that's not mentioned, but you will note that this is not an exclusive list, just the one that seemed appropriate at that time.

So yeah, I've read the US constitution several times and it's interesting document, but often it seems as inspired and inspiring as the book of Numbers in the Bible.

It's not a holy document and it seems the Founding Fathers are quite racist by our current standards, as they seem to recognize the obvious rights/freedoms only when they refer to white people. They established a very progressive system for the time and a mechanism to improve on it as the society evolves. If a year from now 70% of the elected members of congress feel that providing some form of national health insurance counts as a 'general welfare of US' then that's what's going to happen, and whoever doesn't like it can either suck it up and start figuring out how to convince enough people in the opposite so that it can be changed in the future, or they can pack their bags and find another free country that's willing to accept them. That's just how things work.

---

Are you trying to be insulting? I don't remember reading anywhere anyone trying to tell you what the constitution says. The closest anyone came was DEwey and this is what he said: " You know, that is exactly what it is. It is the law of the land that chains the government from encroaching into areas unintended by the founders. It is not a flexible, changin thing. If it were it would be called a Suggestion and not a Constitution which is supposed to be very strict." This I read as saying that the constitution encapsulates the guiding principles by which the government should run and not deviate from, and any changes must fit with the basic principals behind these principles! The original article which got this thread started had to due with our declaration of independence which states the core ideas and beliefs which motivated our forefathers and guided their every thought and action, in other words, the principles behind the principles! the point to this thread are these guiding principles which guided the writing of the constitution!