Charity: Not in the Constitution

[Dr.Who]

Had you actually read my posts on the subject you would know that I had the surgery many years ago and have been legally female and legally married as well. I have been very open about who and what I am, giving information in great detail to those who ask--how could I do otherwise while speaking each term to University students?

I don't know how you missed the fact that I've had the surgery, but, for the record, I have had sexual reassignment surgery and am legally female in all aspects of my life.

Yep, missed that. I thought that I had read that you had not gone that far.

Why? Probably because you are just a person on the internet and of no particularly special interest to me. Shocking as that may be.

I treat you like everyone else and for the most part am only interested in debating the ideas you post. this should be a source of happiness for you - to be treated like everyone else based on your ideas.

 

[Dr.Who]

Pointing out that we'd have no Interstate Highway System... no National Parks... no Center for Disease Control... no NASA... no military except just enough to repel an invasion... no disaster relief... on & on & on, if we for one silly second believed that the government wasn't allowed to step in and help it's people.

I do kinda deserve kudos for that I guess.

Actually it is an ignorant position to think that none of those things would exist (in some form) if it were not for the federal governments intervention.

 

[top gun]

Actually it is an ignorant position to think that none of those things would exist (in some form) if it were not for the federal governments intervention.

It wasn't an "ignorant" position at all as at the time none of these things had been or were being done.. That's WHY the government had to step in... to get them done.

The fact some part of something might have sometime in the future partially been done without government involvment... come on.

If your whole argument is we possibly, maybe, might have gotten Interstate Highways 30 years later than we did... as a tribute to pointing out the good idea of waiting???

Come on... that's extremely shallow on it's face don't you think? Be honest.

 

[Dr.Who]

It wasn't an "ignorant" position at all as at the time none of these things had been or were being done.. That's WHY the government had to step in... to get them done.

The fact some part of something might have sometime in the future partially been done without government involvment... come on.

If your whole argument is we possibly, maybe, might have gotten Interstate Highways 30 years later than we did... as a tribute to pointing out the good idea of waiting???

Come on... that's extremely shallow on it's face don't you think? Be honest.

Roads between states existed while there were still 13 colonies before there even was a thing as a federal government. In fact the phrase "all roads lead to Rome" describes the existence of paved interstate roads 2000 years ago.

The first state park existed most certainly also existed before there was a federal government. Probably in one of the original 13 colonies.

Surely as soon as medical science became advanced enough for there to be anything along the lines of a CDC the states would each create one. Why every state still has a health department. And according to this site state run health departments existed all the way back to Egyptian times:
http://www.ci.st-joseph.mo.us/health/health_history.cfm

We never needed NASA.

No military except to repel invasion. Um, but that is the liberal dream. One I agree with, there is not need for the US to have an offensive military or to engage in so called imperialistic persuits.

Disaster relief: also a thing that has been going on for as long as history has been recorded.

You have no evidence that it would take longer for things to be developed without government involvement and for all the things that have existed as long as history has been recorded it would be silly to make that statement.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Roads between states existed while there were still 13 colonies before there even was a thing as a federal government. In fact the phrase "all roads lead to Rome" describes the existence of paved interstate roads 2000 years ago.

The first state park existed most certainly also existed before there was a federal government. Probably in one of the original 13 colonies.

Surely as soon as medical science became advanced enough for there to be anything along the lines of a CDC the states would each create one. Why every state still has a health department. And according to this site state run health departments existed all the way back to Egyptian times:
http://www.ci.st-joseph.mo.us/health/health_history.cfm

We never needed NASA.

No military except to repel invasion. Um, but that is the liberal dream. One I agree with, there is not need for the US to have an offensive military or to engage in so called imperialistic persuits.

Disaster relief: also a thing that has been going on for as long as history has been recorded.

You have no evidence that it would take longer for things to be developed without government involvement and for all the things that have existed as long as history has been recorded it would be silly to make that statement.

Can you give a single example where huge projects like the interstate hiway system, transcontinental railroad, the pyramids, or the Great Wall of China were accomplished by groups of peole working independently? The Roman roads were a government projects just as the aqueducts were. Top is right, without government impetus and funding, without someone being in charge of the project these large undertakings would not get done.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Roads between states existed while there were still 13 colonies before there even was a thing as a federal government. In fact the phrase "all roads lead to Rome" describes the existence of paved interstate roads 2000 years ago.

The first state park existed most certainly also existed before there was a federal government. Probably in one of the original 13 colonies.

Surely as soon as medical science became advanced enough for there to be anything along the lines of a CDC the states would each create one. Why every state still has a health department. And according to this site state run health departments existed all the way back to Egyptian times:
http://www.ci.st-joseph.mo.us/health/health_history.cfm

We never needed NASA.

No military except to repel invasion. Um, but that is the liberal dream. One I agree with, there is not need for the US to have an offensive military or to engage in so called imperialistic persuits.

Disaster relief: also a thing that has been going on for as long as history has been recorded.

You have no evidence that it would take longer for things to be developed without government involvement and for all the things that have existed as long as history has been recorded it would be silly to make that statement.

Come to think of it, even the Universe has a God overseeing it, the job isn't left to demi-gods or the people who live there. Somebody is always in charge, even Indians had tribes, councils, and chiefs. The only groups I know of who had no discernable hierarchy were some of the tiny family groups like the Kalahari bushmen.

You are correct in that governments can get too big and powerful for their own good because they tend to abuse their populations and destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs for them to tax.

 

[Dr.Who]

Can you give a single example where huge projects like the interstate hiway system, transcontinental railroad, the pyramids, or the Great Wall of China were accomplished by groups of peole working independently? The Roman roads were a government projects just as the aqueducts were. Top is right, without government impetus and funding, without someone being in charge of the project these large undertakings would not get done.

Billions of people are employed and Millions of personal computers are being used by millions of people and businesses to complete much more work than was done before they existed.

Billions of cars were produced, distributed and used by billions of people by private companies. Before that millions of people got around by horse using private livery services and stagecoaches.

Billions of homes are lived in without gov impetus or funding.

So I have just named a system that provides housing, work, and transportation without gov impetus or funding. Each one of those systems is larger than any of the gov projects that are minor in comparison.

Every item sold and consumed is done so through groups of people who produce, transport and trade those products working in cooperation with each other in order for the whole system to work.

In the even that anyone thinks that is a minor undertaking or that gov would even have a chance at doing the same thing at all as well should consider the production of just one small item - the pencil. (see link below)

http://fee.org/library/books/i-pencil-2/

Or did you really want to limit the discussion to just large architectural projects - like the Sears Tower which is a far more impressive feat than the a pyramid. Or the Hancock building or the CN tower in Canada, or Taipai 101, or the Shanghai World Financial Center, etc. How many great buildings would I have to name before I got to one that was less impressive than a pyramid? A thousand?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'd say that what we (the states) absolutely DON'T need is Federal "help" in times of natural disaster.

Yeah....Lil' Dumbya surely did "prove" that, after Katrina.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Every item sold and consumed is done so through groups of people who produce, transport and trade those products working in cooperation with each other in order for the whole system to work.

Yeah....the operative-word being "work"!!!!

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Actually it is an ignorant position to think that none of those things would exist (in some form) if it were not for the federal governments intervention.

Gee.....whatta "convincing" argument.......

​

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Billions of people are employed and Millions of personal computers are being used by millions of people and businesses to complete much more work than was done before they existed.

Billions of cars were produced, distributed and used by billions of people by private companies. Before that millions of people got around by horse using private livery services and stagecoaches.

Billions of homes are lived in without gov impetus or funding.

So I have just named a system that provides housing, work, and transportation without gov impetus or funding. Each one of those systems is larger than any of the gov projects that are minor in comparison.

Every item sold and consumed is done so through groups of people who produce, transport and trade those products working in cooperation with each other in order for the whole system to work.

In the even that anyone thinks that is a minor undertaking or that gov would even have a chance at doing the same thing at all as well should consider the production of just one small item - the pencil. (see link below)

http://fee.org/library/books/i-pencil-2/

Or did you really want to limit the discussion to just large architectural projects - like the Sears Tower which is a far more impressive feat than the a pyramid. Or the Hancock building or the CN tower in Canada, or Taipai 101, or the Shanghai World Financial Center, etc. How many great buildings would I have to name before I got to one that was less impressive than a pyramid? A thousand?

It was government funding which paid for the original development of the internet.

I think we are talking about two different kinds of projects, building cars and selling them is nothing like the Center for Disease Control. One is a for profit enterprise which is based entirely on making money. Whereas working to guard the public health has no profit motive, no product to sell. The same applies to building houses, whereas the interstate hiway system again has nothing to sell--unless tolls are charged.

Just as the military doesn't turn a profit, there are many other projects that are not money-makers either. Your idea that a greed-based system can provide all the things to make life livable is incorrect. An excellent example of this is the pharmaceutical industry which would not invest in a cure for AIDS because they stated that not enough people had it to justify the cost of the research. So, the government is funding the research.

 

[Little-Acorn]

And among all the distracting discussion of whether we'd be better off if freeways or Welfare or moonshots were not conducted by the Federal Government....

...charity is STILL not in the Constitution.

Would you like it to be?

Do you have any objection to drafting a Constitutional amendment authorizing the Fed govt to engage in "charity" (that is, the forcible taking of resources from one group to give to another group the govt judges a "more needy"), doing the legwork and publicity needed to get 2/3 of each house of Congress to vote for it, and then to get 3/4 of the states to ratify it?

Go for it!

If you don't want to do these things... then why don't YOU want the Fed govt to engage in "charity"? Are you cold, cruel, and heartless?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And among all the distracting discussion of whether we'd be better off if freeways or Welfare or moonshots were not conducted by the Federal Government....

...charity is STILL not in the Constitution.

Would you like it to be?

Do you have any objection to drafting a Constitutional amendment authorizing the Fed govt to engage in "charity" (that is, the forcible taking of resources from one group to give to another group the govt judges a "more needy"), doing the legwork and publicity needed to get 2/3 of each house of Congress to vote for it, and then to get 3/4 of the states to ratify it?

Go for it!

If you don't want to do these things... then why don't YOU want the Fed govt to engage in "charity"? Are you cold, cruel, and heartless?

False choice. NASA, interstate highways, the CDC, etc. are not charities.

There are actually a lot of laws that have been passed by duly elected officials in pursuit of the mandate of the people. Marriage contract issues for instance are not in the Constitution, are they?

 

[Little-Acorn]

False choice. NASA, interstate highways, the CDC, etc. are not charities.

Then why are they being discussed in a thread about charity in the Constitution? Yes, they are all false choices. Thanks for pointing this out.

There are actually a lot of laws that have been passed by duly elected officials in pursuit of the mandate of the people.

And a lot of them are unconstitutional.

Does that hold any significance for anyone here?

(Liberals need not reply, we know that constitutional adherence means nothing to you.)

Back to the subject:
Would you like charity to be listed in the Constitution as a power given to the Federal govt?

Do you have any objection to drafting a Constitutional amendment authorizing the Fed govt to engage in "charity" (that is, the forcible taking of resources from one group to give to another group the govt judges a "more needy"), doing the legwork and publicity needed to get 2/3 of each house of Congress to vote for it, and then to get 3/4 of the states to ratify it?

Go for it!

If you don't want to do these things... then why don't YOU want the Fed govt to engage in "charity"? Are you cold, cruel, and heartless?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Then why are they being discussed in a thread about charity in the Constitution? Yes, they are all false choices. Thanks for pointing this out.
And a lot of them are unconstitutional. Does that hold any significance for anyone here?

(Liberals need not reply, we know that constitutional adherence means nothing to you.)

It's hard to discuss something with a person who excludes more than half the population right from the start.

Back to the subject:
Would you like charity to be listed in the Constitution as a power given to the Federal govt?

Do you have any objection to drafting a Constitutional amendment authorizing the Fed govt to engage in "charity" (that is, the forcible taking of resources from one group to give to another group the govt judges a "more needy"), doing the legwork and publicity needed to get 2/3 of each house of Congress to vote for it, and then to get 3/4 of the states to ratify it?

Go for it!

If you don't want to do these things... then why don't YOU want the Fed govt to engage in "charity"? Are you cold, cruel, and heartless?

We started out as a Representative Republic so that we could elect well-educated people--since most of the population was not--and they could do our bidding within the confines of the Constitutional framework and what they thought was good for the country. But as time went by we degenerated into a democracy, then a mobocracy, and finally we have become a kakistocracy (government by those least suited to govern).

Part of this has been brought about by extremists like yourself, Corn, with polemical posts and broadbrush condemnations which you cannot support.

Not everything can be--nor should be--put into the Constitution. Mostly I find you screaming about your money, not ethics or morality, not what's best for the greatest number of people, just money. If people elect representatives who use our money for charity then we have gotten what we voted for, now you may be in the minority who always votes your pocketbook, but I don't see anything to make me think that most Americans feel that way. I guess if I was going to be unhappy about government spending I would object to subsidies to giant corporations that outsource our jobs, pay no taxes, and exercise their sempiternal greed on all of mankind.

So, I gather that you are big on the Constitution. Do you support the equal protection clause? Do you support allowing gay people to have an equal access to legal marriage like all other consenting adults have?