Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[GenSeneca]

So would your separation of state and economy remove all controls on economic activity?

It would remove all regulation of the markets except those which protect us from force and fraud, i.e., the ones that protect our rights.

This means regulations like the CAFE standard would go away, but laws against cooking the books Enron style would stay in place. It would also eliminate such things as bailouts, subsidies, corporate welfare, tax breaks and the politicians ability to offer these, and other, legislative incentives to corporate donors in return for campaign contributions.

In short, it would bar the government from interfering in the free markets and it would limit government to protecting our rights.

Please explain how I was defending the rich and powerful.

I did not say you were defending the rich and powerful, I said:

You both support the forced redistribution of wealth.

Are you going to deny the truth of that statement?

We are in the middle of a war, you seem to be advocating that our side lay down their weapons and surrender.

Do you want to discuss how our military should handle the war, or do you want to discuss the topic, the forced redistribution of wealth?

Reform our government for the specific purpose of defending our rights, then the rich and powerful bogeymen couldn't use the government to legally violate your rights and you couldn't use the government to legally violate theirs. Any violation of rights would result in the offender being arrested, taken to court, and tried for their crime.

 

[GenSeneca]

And yet they laid out a very ambitious role for their newly founded government. Let me remind you what the preamble of our constitution states...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

This is not a mission statement for a limited central government. Our Founders believed that government could be a force of progress and good, as indicated by the very mission they assigned to it.

The founders concept of the "general welfare" is very different from your bastardized definition of the concept. They believed in promoting the general welfare of all persons, not your concept of providing specific welfare benefits to some at the exclusion, and at the cost, of everyone else.

 

[citizenzen]

The founders concept of the "general welfare" is very different from your bastardized definition of the concept. They believed in promoting the general welfare of all persons, not your concept of providing specific welfare benefits to some at the exclusion, and at the cost, of everyone else.

Thank you for clarifying that... I had assumed they handed out Ye Olde Food Stamps.

And once again, thank you for entering into my mind and telling me what I think. It's a rare talent. You might think of taking that act out on the road.

 

[GenSeneca]

Thank you for clarifying that... I had assumed they handed out Ye Olde Food Stamps.

And once again, thank you for entering into my mind and telling me what I think. It's a rare talent. You might think of taking that act out on the road.

Without the barest hint of braggadocio or conceit, and with what one could describe as deep humility, I say to you: 'I have a gift'

 

[citizenzen]

Without the barest hint of braggadocio or conceit, and with what one could describe as deep humility, I say to you: 'I have a gift'

I hope you saved the receipt.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Without the barest hint of braggadocio or conceit, and with what one could describe as deep humility, I say to you: 'I have a gift'

lol, classic

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It would remove all regulation of the markets except those which protect us from force and fraud, i.e., the ones that protect our rights.

This means regulations like the CAFE standard would go away, but laws against cooking the books Enron style would stay in place. It would also eliminate such things as bailouts, subsidies, corporate welfare, tax breaks and the politicians ability to offer these, and other, legislative incentives to corporate donors in return for campaign contributions.

In short, it would bar the government from interfering in the free markets and it would limit government to protecting our rights.

I did not say you were defending the rich and powerful, I said:
You both support the forced redistribution of wealth.
Are you going to deny the truth of that statement?

Actually you did say that I was defending them in your post #215, "While you have tried repeatedly to characterize my opposition to the forced redistribution of wealth as advocating for the 'abuses by the rich and powerful', you are the one who has been busy agreeing with, and defending, their position."

Do you want to discuss how our military should handle the war, or do you want to discuss the topic, the forced redistribution of wealth?

The war to which I refered was the economic one between rich and poor in this country.

Reform our government for the specific purpose of defending our rights, then the rich and powerful bogeymen couldn't use the government to legally violate your rights and you couldn't use the government to legally violate theirs. Any violation of rights would result in the offender being arrested, taken to court, and tried for their crime.

So I was right, part of our disagreement is where we are starting on the problem. I was starting here and now, you are starting from a reformed position--a position that does not exist and I see no rational or likely way to get to your starting position. I don't have much argument with your position and ideas if we start with a level playing field. But how will we get there?

Right now we need to find a way to make resources available to the people who are the neediest, I don't think the wealthy people will give up what they have willingly, so where do we go from here?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The founders concept of the "general welfare" is very different from your bastardized definition of the concept. They believed in promoting the general welfare of all persons, not your concept of providing specific welfare benefits to some at the exclusion, and at the cost, of everyone else.

Once again, while I agree with you in theory, I see no way to get from where we are to where you envision us being. General welfare for ALL people, but ALL people don't need the same things, so are you advocating EVERYBODY getting exactly the same things from the government (one person gets Food Stamps and therefore everyone else does too?) or are you seeing it operating on more of a "to each according to their need" kind of way?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Without the barest hint of braggadocio or conceit, and with what one could describe as deep humility, I say to you: 'I have a gift'

We all have gifts, everyone has something to teach and something to learn. I hope you aren't getting into some kind of "messiah" mode.

 

[GenSeneca]

Actually you did say that I was defending them...

I did not say you were defending them, I said you were agreeing with and defending their position:

"...you are the one who has been busy agreeing with, and defending, their position."

Are you going to deny that you both support the forced redistribution of wealth?

I was starting here and now, you are starting from a reformed position--a position that does not exist and I see no rational or likely way to get to your starting position.

Slavery was at point "here and now", segregation was at one point "here and now", at one time women and blacks could not vote "here and now", it was only by pushing for the necessary reforms that we ended those injustices.

Your "solution" is not an attempt to end the injustices, you are advocating for a retaliatory injustice - You are pushing the concept of two wrongs make a right.

Right now we need to find a way to make resources available to the people who are the neediest, I don't think the wealthy people will give up what they have willingly, so where do we go from here?

Need will always outweigh ability. You need to learn and accept that simple fact of life. No matter how much force you apply, you cannot eliminate need.

In fact, the more force you apply, the greater the needs grow and the less ability there is to satisfy the needs. Every collectivist society in history that has tried to eliminate need through the use of force eventually became a totalitarian society, committed horrific atrocities in the name of the common good, and inevitably collapsed.

 

[GenSeneca]

Once again, while I agree with you in theory, I see no way to get from where we are to where you envision us being. General welfare for ALL people, but ALL people don't need the same things...

The military, police, fire, courts, etc. benefit every individual equally by protecting the lives, rights, and property of everyone.

Welfare and entitlement programs do not benefit everyone equally, they benefit some at the expense of others.

The founders concept of the General Welfare was based on benefiting every individual equally, not benefiting some at the expense of others.

are you seeing it operating on more of a "to each according to their need" kind of way?

That's what you are advocating for....

To each according to their need...

 

[GenSeneca]

We all have gifts, everyone has something to teach and something to learn. I hope you aren't getting into some kind of "messiah" mode.

Did you just take a shot at Obama?

 

[citizenzen]

Your "solution" is not an attempt to end the injustices, you are advocating for a retaliatory injustice - You are pushing the concept of two wrongs make a right.

Every one of the social advances you tout was achieved under a government that taxed its citizens. It's been proven for hundreds of years that not only can taxes sustain a complex society, they do not prevent social progress, nor do they prevent people from improving their economic condition.

So you'll have to excuse me if I ask for some compelling evidence to ditch the system that has allowed mankind to advance and flourish. Perhaps you could start a colony of Teabaggers and demonstrate the viability of mutually beneficial exchanges. I'd be interested in seeing how well it works for you.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Are you going to deny that you both support the forced redistribution of wealth?

Sometimes force is necessary, isn't it? As you noted, at one time we had slavery and it took a devastating war to bring it to an end. A hundred years later is took the violence ridden civil rights movement to get equality for blacks.

In fact, the more force you apply, the greater the needs grow and the less ability there is to satisfy the needs. Every collectivist society in history that has tried to eliminate need through the use of force eventually became a totalitarian society, committed horrific atrocities in the name of the common good, and inevitably collapsed.

This is a hopeless philosophy, you are saying that we can never solve the problem no matter what we do. I don't agree with you.

 

[GenSeneca]

Every one of the social advances you tout was achieved under a government that taxed its citizens.

I'll give you one thing... You sure are persistent in attacking strawmen.

I've never said there should be no taxes.... I have no problem with paying taxes for military, police, fire, courts etc. They give me something for my money, they protect my life, rights and property.

Oh, I think there's a strawman over there looking at you funny... Git em!