About spending Federal money to build storm shelters etc.

[9sublime]

If the goverment could more effectively decide with whom you should have sex or marry would that be the role of gov?

I have sat for some time now, trying to deduce the logic between hurricane shelters and arranged marriage, and I simply cannot find the common thread. Who I marry is entirely my own business, and I in fact expect the government to keep its nose out of my business 100% in such matters. The only possible exception is if I am coercing/being coerced into marriage.

You will have to explain how the two are linked, because I am at an absolute loss.

However, I do expect the government to protect people's physical lives when in clear danger, especially something as massive as the elements. If the construction of hurricane shelters in known danger spots have a very, very good chance of saving my life, I have to support them.

 

[9sublime]

It is my opinion that the greatest threat facing the citizens of this country is that they will be banished from the presence of God as a result of their sins. It is not merely their physical lives that are in danger for a fleeting moment but their eternal souls.

So clearly the gov should be there to protect the souls of its citizens. Right?

No, because

• There is no solid evidence people are damned after death if they don't follow Christianity
• Religious faith is voluntary, and so forcing/coercing people into faith is an ineffective way of saving their souls according to Christian theology.
• There is clear evidence hurricanes occur, and kill people

What is clear is that we need a set of rules to decide which of the many worthy projects the gov has the authority to tackle. I suggest the constitution.

And who says that people cannot protect themselves from tornadoes? Certainly any modification to one's own home is far superior to a modification done to a public building two miles away. In fact, plywood shutters on the windows of a single room in every house would offer more protection from tornadoes than concrete bunkers placed every two miles.

But the constitution is a poor suggestion for guidance in this instance, because it makes no mention of hurricanes.

 

[Texas_tea]

hopefully as in let the peopleof each state decide what is appropriate to their situation and as their state constitutions allow. there isnothing in the federal constitution that allows for action in this area.

Yes ...
I agree. It is a state matter.

 

[dogtowner]

I have sat for some time now, trying to deduce the logic between hurricane shelters and arranged marriage, and I simply cannot find the common thread. Who I marry is entirely my own business, and I in fact expect the government to keep its nose out of my business 100% in such matters. The only possible exception is if I am coercing/being coerced into marriage.

You will have to explain how the two are linked, because I am at an absolute loss.

However, I do expect the government to protect people's physical lives when in clear danger, especially something as massive as the elements. If the construction of hurricane shelters in known danger spots have a very, very good chance of saving my life, I have to support them.

the common thread is force. cedeing authority to government means allowing force to be used against its citizens for non compliance. if the bar is no higher than perceived effiency, that covers quite a lot of ground.

 

[9sublime]

How is the coercion between forcing two people to marry in any way, shape or for comparable to the government choosing to build people a storm shelter?

 

[Texas_tea]

How is the coercion between forcing two people to marry in any way, shape or for comparable to the government choosing to build people a storm shelter?

It's not the governments job!
Unlike the UK, the majority of citizens in the US do not want to depend of the the Federal Government for squat!
Just like in the UK, the US Government has proven itself 100% to be inefficient and ineffective in anything it has ever done!
But, most importantly, the US Government here is supposed to be bound by the Constitution and does not have the legal right to do anything that is not strictly specified by the US Constitution!

 

[dogtowner]

How is the coercion between forcing two people to marry in any way, shape or for comparable to the government choosing to build people a storm shelter?

the government does not choose to do things. if it does then it does so by force. as with obamacare. and thats called tyrany. I appreciate that this is difficult to grasp for someone where you live. but its the basic reason America (and so many others) are no longer colonies of merry olde.

 

[Dr.Who]

I have sat for some time now, trying to deduce the logic between hurricane shelters and arranged marriage, and I simply cannot find the common thread. Who I marry is entirely my own business, and I in fact expect the government to keep its nose out of my business 100% in such matters. The only possible exception is if I am coercing/being coerced into marriage.

You will have to explain how the two are linked, because I am at an absolute loss.

However, I do expect the government to protect people's physical lives when in clear danger, especially something as massive as the elements. If the construction of hurricane shelters in known danger spots have a very, very good chance of saving my life, I have to support them.

Then you agree that the gov has a role and some thing are not a part of that role. I would expect you to agree now that merely being able to do something is not justification enough for the gov to do it. Merely being effective at something is also not a reason for the gov to do it. what is important is that the gov has the role to do something.

So where in the constitution is the gov given the role to protect people from the elements?

On a side note: isn't your money just as much your business as your sex life? isn't where you work your business? How much you earned last year? What agreements you made with the people you buy and sell from/to? In a thousand thousand ways the gov intrudes upon your privacy by demanding to know for whom you work, what is in your contract, how much you are paid...and while this is all Ok they cant know how you are going to spread your communicable diseases? If they can make a case that they need to know how much you earned then they can make a case that they need to know who has herpes and who your partners are. Let them step outside of their role just once and the genie will not easily be put back in the bottle.

 

[Dr.Who]

No, because

• There is no solid evidence people are damned after death if they don't follow Christianity
• Religious faith is voluntary, and so forcing/coercing people into faith is an ineffective way of saving their souls according to Christian theology.
• There is clear evidence hurricanes occur, and kill people

But the constitution is a poor suggestion for guidance in this instance, because it makes no mention of hurricanes.

Since when does the gov only act based on solid evidence? If the fed gov can protect people from an uncertain harm (because while we know that hurricanes do kill people we never know which people will be killed or even if any will be killed in any particular storm) then it can be called to protect people from other uncertain harms - like damnation. Politicians will always convince the majority opinion that their ideas need to be instutited on a large scale with gov money and this country has a long history of Christianity being the dominant view. Solid evidence will never be the criteria used no matter how much you wold like it to be the criteria. the criteria needs to be the defined role laid out in the constitution.

And yes our founding fathers were very aware of hurricanes and the fact that they are NOT mentioned is because it is not the role of the fed gov to protect us from them. if you think that should be a role then advocate an amendment.

 

[Cruella]

Whoa ... why are you saying it should not be a state issue?

I said, that "it should be a state issue." Where did you get the "not" ?

 

[Texas_tea]

I said, that "it should be a state issue." Where did you get the "not" ?

Sorry, obviously I miss read your comment.