"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny. And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare. No contradiction there. They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution. |
|
|
|
I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.
Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection? Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state. Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her. Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ? Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions. |
|
|
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny. |
|
|
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare |
|
|
|
Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?
This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.
You are not the only one that cares for them. What about them? Those who want to care for them, should do so. It's very simple. If you want something, it doesn't mean you are entitled to steal and enslave to get it. |
|
|
|
I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.
Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection? Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state. Even Thomas Jefferson realized that this is not so when he proposed the General Welfare clause “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare .” Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave. It only means to act within the powers that are enumerated within the constitution: that doesn't include coercive, involuntary welfare. So, Thomas Jefferson had no such thoughts in regards to voluntary charity. Hopefully he doesn't kill you in your sleep. "They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 |
|
|
|
I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.
Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection? Atlas sees the light! Of course, he will defend to his death the mother's right to be free from coercion and to keep her children, probably. The mother has the right to herself as long she doesn't infringe the rights of other individuals: the children and the slaves of the state. |
|
|
|
I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.
Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection? Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state. |
|
|
|
|
I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.
|
|
|
|
Hey guys, if you can provide an argument as to why robbery is objectively immoral under any circumstances, I'll be impressed.
Otherwise, you must stop saying "blah blah moral blah blah rights."
Go read some Nietzsche and come back to us. Most of us have passed Philosophy 101. We know there is no objective morality. However, it is certain that property rights encourage the sustention of life. They give people incentive to produce in the first place. Philosophy, blah. The only analysis that matters is materialist analysis -- gotta agree with Marx on that. I'm too busy to read useless philosophy  Now, I must point out that your support of the "sustention [sic] of life" is not consistent with your other posts, in which you say that if someone is about to die, nobody should be forced to feed them. Is that really why you support your absolutist system of property rights? Taxation and coercion reduce the incentive to produce... this is true. They do not completely eliminate it though. Why is your system of morality superior to mine, which values fairness more than an absolutist system of rights? Nobody should be forced to feed anybody because they will most likely be fed through voluntary means otherwise. The fact people have such a strong desire to hurt and kill in the name of defending the poor shows they will not starve in a free society. In fact, a society that plunders others to support the underclasses is inefficient and only 'hurts' these 'poor' even more due to how stolen money is not used with little regard to --again-- efficiency and profit. A society that voluntarily gives from its own pocket will make sure to use the money efficiently and directly towards the "poor" at hand. The poor would be much better off being helped by who truly want to and can help them as opposed to murders and thugs who bring down other people to meet their ends. Fairness -- fairness is not a virtue. It is only envy of those who bring value and have earned value. Life is not a zero-sum game. Those who have gained rightfully have stolen nothing: they have only created wealth and I don't think their property rights should be compromised. Wealth creation helps everyone. I hold the morally rich as the most charitable and they should be rewarded with our complete respect at the least. In conclusion, life is best sustained with a complete respect for property rights. Things will be made more efficient, the poor will be better fed if we allow man to keep what he has earned all the way throughout. Voluntarily giving is more efficient and more potent since man will have to give out of his own freewill and not slavery. Also, Marx values individual sweat labor more -- not society, not people -- they value what they choose to value. He can't apply his preferences and what he values universally. |
|
|
|
Children cannot be held responsible for parents choice. Not their fault their parents are idiot.
People cannot be held responsible for other people's choices. It's not their fault this mother chose to have 15 children. I am all for people voluntarily helping this mother's children but the idea other people must be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for HER CHOICES is disturbing. But the children are more valuable than you. They have a higher potential than you, they can become important scientists or what else, so it's in the interest of the nation to help them. No, you value the children more than me. It's not in the interest of the nation to help them. A nation does not think, feel... It is not a sentient organism -- you are. It is in YOUR interest to help them and YOU want to steal for me to meet YOUR DESIRE: to help the children. It is a fact that they have more potential than an adult person. It doesn't matter. Only an individual can value that in the end. You do and you want to steal/hurt/kill to meet this desire of yours. I certainly don't care if a child may have more potential than me. I won't commit suicide or inhibit the ability to sustain myself or somebody else to help the child. |
|
|
|
Children cannot be held responsible for parents choice. Not their fault their parents are idiot.
People cannot be held responsible for other people's choices. It's not their fault this mother chose to have 15 children. I am all for people voluntarily helping this mother's children but the idea other people must be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for HER CHOICES is disturbing. But the children are more valuable than you. They have a higher potential than you, they can become important scientists or what else, so it's in the interest of the nation to help them. No, you value the children more than me. It's not in the interest of the nation to help them. A nation does not think, feel... It is not a sentient organism -- you are. It is in YOUR interest to help them and YOU want to steal for me to meet YOUR DESIRE: to help the children. Why is theft bad? Good luck arguing that point. Property rights encourage the sustention of life by giving incentive for production. Go read some Nietzsche. This is basic philosophy here, friend. There's nothing original here. There is no morality, no meaning... nothing intrinsic... Yes, we know. Truisms. We're discussing preferences. Go ahead and go nihilistic on us but it proves nothing extraordinary. We all prefer life. We are discussing the means to meet that end. |
|
|
|
Somebody has to care for them to want to enslave people to have these children cared for. Otherwise, they would be left to die. The fact that it's an issue shows they will be cared for. It's only a matter of expressing that compassion morally without tyranny. In the end, if violence has to occur, it's only due to laziness from the people who send the brutes to get the children cared for.
There are an estimated 30 million real, actual, no-foolin' slaves left in the world. By claiming that a billionaire who pays 15% tax on his capital gains is in the same league with them, and spending 99% of your time complaining about his "plight" while ignoring the real slaves, you pretty much make yourself out to be a disgusting piece of shit. Your arrangement is just about percents? So, at what point does one become a slave? 50%, 75%, 95%, 99.999999999% ? what then? You missed the point. There are real slaves. There are people who pay income tax. Its sad to see people pretending they are slaves because they pay income tax. A real slave has little to no say in how much of his labor he can keep. An income tax sounds the same as slavery to me: a limitation of choice by an external force. |
|
|
|
Hey guys, if you can provide an argument as to why robbery is objectively immoral under any circumstances, I'll be impressed.
Otherwise, you must stop saying "blah blah moral blah blah rights."
Go read some Nietzsche and come back to us. Most of us have passed Philosophy 101. We know there is no objective morality. However, it is certain that property rights encourage the sustention of life. They give people incentive to produce in the first place. |
|
|
|
Children cannot be held responsible for parents choice. Not their fault their parents are idiot.
People cannot be held responsible for other people's choices. It's not their fault this mother chose to have 15 children. I am all for people voluntarily helping this mother's children but the idea other people must be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for HER CHOICES is disturbing. But the children are more valuable than you. They have a higher potential than you, they can become important scientists or what else, so it's in the interest of the nation to help them. No, you value the children more than me. It's not in the interest of the nation to help them. A nation does not think, feel... It is not a sentient organism -- you are. It is in YOUR interest to help them and YOU want to steal for me to meet YOUR DESIRE: to help the children. |
|
|
|
He would if the choice was between that, a dozen other jobs exactly like that, or starving to death. We know this because it has actually happened, unlike your fairytale capitalism that could never exist. But hey, at least he had a choice! That's freedom, baby! I can choose to die in the coal mines or the salt mines!
It's irrational to assume this would happen in a free society. Obviously nobody likes working in such places. The only people who would are those with no valuable skills. Of course, after working, in say, a salt mine for a year or two one would then gain the skills to move up: the individual gained value and is thus more desirable. Anybody could desire him whether it be an individual with capital or a company. Obviously not everybody would start at the bottom rung of the latter. I honestly don't see anything wrong with starting out with a crappy job and working your way up. That's what most factory workers do in India: they work for a period or two then save up to start their own business. To me that is freedom. |
|
|
|
I have yet to be killed; I am still winning. You don't deserve to die. You deserve to live as a wage slave in a libertarian dystopia for another 60 or 70 years and then drop dead on the eve of your first day off from work in a decade. Heh, no worker would oblige to such conditions. Maybe in North Korea where there is no choice. |
|
|
|
|
I have yet to be killed; I am still winning.
|
|
|
|
|
>blacklists
Nobody, no server is adopting this bullshit. When and if mass adoption of this garbage occurs, me and every other man with principles is out and we're going to adopt a blockchain that isn't regulated by parasites. You can keep your parasites; I will remain accountable only to myself and an objective blockchain.
Actually, go start your own StatistCoin with blacklists and sell it to the Treasury Department and the central banks: that's what should be done.
In all seriousness, it's not in the best interest of a node to blacklist things. It would find itself quickly alienated from the network over more open and preferable nodes. There are more amoral men than prudes.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
