Taxes and the Constitution

[reb]

taking my tax dollars and giving them without my consent to someone else is theft. the country was not set up that way...this social engineering is a modern conceit.

[Hamburglar]

taking my tax dollars and giving them without my consent to someone else is theft. the country was not set up that way...this social engineering is a modern conceit.


You are wrong if you think the US was not set up to collect taxes and give them to other people. Your consent is not literally required....by virtue of living here you have given your consent (or at least not rescinded it). Taxes are not theft, they are constitutionally mandated:

Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:

“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;

[aku chi]

You are wrong if you think the US was not set up to collect taxes and give them to other people. Your consent is not literally required....by virtue of living here you have given your consent (or at least not rescinded it). Taxes are not theft, they are constitutionally mandated:

Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:

“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;

Thank you for quoting the relevant section of the Constitution, you've done my work for me. Taxes are indeed constitutionally allowed (but not at all mandated, Article 1, Section 8 begins, "The Congress shall have the power", not "The Congress is mandated to excercise the following powers"). So that fact should immediately reject the notion that the US was "set up" for the purpose of transfer taxes (even if they were allowed, which in many cases they aren't). The power to tax and spend is not unrestrained. The taxes "shall be uniform throughout the United States". It is not constitutional to directly transfer wealth from the citizens of New York to the citizens of Alabama. Also, Congress shall only have the power to collect taxes for the specific purposes outlined. If the taxes are not being collected for those purposes, the taxes aren't constitutional. In practice, almost any kind of tax can be defended as being "for the general welfare" but there is a possibility for the most direct of transfer taxes to be rejected on these grounds.

Most importantly, this clause of The Constitution does not mention spending at all. A strict interpretation of The Constitution yields that Congress may not spend the taxes unless they are given the power elsewhere in The Constitution (like the rest of Article 1, Section 8). Whether or not the above clause contains an implicit allowance to spend for the purposes outlined has been argued for centuries going all the way back to the Federalist Papers. Predictably, Alexander Hamilton argued that there was such an implicit allowance. James Madison, the chief author of The Constitution, argued that there was not. The Supreme Court has also been divided through history in their interpretation of the clause. So, from the very valid strict reading of the clause, spending taxes "for the general welfare" is not allowed and we would have to look elsewhere in The Constitution for permission for Congress to transfer wealth from some of its citizens to others. Such permission certainly exists for specific cases like paying postmen and members of the national army and navy but there is, to my reading, no general allowance for wealth redistribution to be found in The Constitution.

[Hamburglar]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. Always read the intro to determine the intent.


Union>Justice>Tranquility>Defense>Welfare>Liberty/For Americans today, and for Americans tomorrow=Constitution of America.

To understand the middle, you have to understand the beginning. When you separate the parts from the whole, I hope it is easier to recognize what the intent of the framers really was.

There is no hierarchy, they are all mentioned equally. They left it up to themselves, and the future generations to uphold and perfect that concept. Under that premise you can truly understand the history of American political discourse, and its promise.

[aku chi]

Hamburglar, is this a response to my post? I will assume it is.

Always read the intro to determine the intent.
...
To understand the middle, you have to understand the beginning.
I quite agree the the best way to understand the intent or purpose of The Constitution is to read its preamble. However, when trying to understand the powers granted to Congress, Article 1, Section 8 is most appropriate.

When you separate the parts from the whole, I hope it is easier to recognize what the intent of the framers really was.

There is no hierarchy, they are all mentioned equally. They left it up to themselves, and the future generations to uphold and perfect that concept. Under that premise you can truly understand the history of American political discourse, and its promise.
I'm afraid I don't understand what point or "premise" you're trying to make. Would you care to elaborate or restate?

I would like to point out something that may not be completely apparent in the preamble. The signatories of The Constitution "do ordain and establish this Constitution" for the reasons specified. They do not establish the US government in order to satisfy their listed goals. The Constitution has at least as much text concerning what the federal government cannot do as compared to what it can do. This point may not be relevant but I thought I'd mention it because it is interesting and, I think, rather unique among constitutions.

[Night Runner]

Sixteenth Amendment.

[aku chi]

Sixteenth Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Sixteenth Amendment says nothing about spending. Taxes on wages were completely unrestricted before the passing of the Sixteenth Amendment. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), it was decided that taxing income from property should be treated as taxing property. Therefore, such taxes were direct taxes and subject to apportionment among the several states. The Sixteenth Amendment simply removed this restriction on taxes on income. It is likely that Pollock would have been overruled by later courts anyway, making the Sixteenth Amendment one of the less meaningful.

[RBM]

taking my tax dollars and giving them without my consent to someone else is theft. the country was not set up that way...this social engineering is a modern conceit.

I disagree with the labeling of 'theft'. The constitutional quotes allow for it, so how it 'was' set up is related historically, but to me doesn't get to the heart of the matter which then leads to the social engineering - but I see a long, huge, big, gap from how the country was set up to modern conceit.

So yeah NOW we have the most 21st century propaganda socially engineered situation as ever in man's history. Drill down though, what matters is if you like the engineering or not. I don't and advocate - for a start - Monetary Reform (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Jinglish]

Your consent is not literally required....by virtue of living here you have given your consent (or at least not rescinded it).So, simply because I was born here (obviously not a matter of my choice) and cannot yet leave, I've given my consent to have a portion of my wages garnished? Please, do explain.

[reb]

let me try to make this as dirt simple as i can...to say that the government derives its power from a piece of paper is a wrong thought. the government derives its power, in all cases, from the consent of the governed. to think otherwise is to believe in the 'divine authority of kings' (read some history, if you have not-perhaps more is necessary). if one is so submissive as to believe they need any piece of paper to 'designate their rights', or that the government can do as it pleases without the consent of the governed, then one has not observed history, and does not understand the concept of 'natural born man', from which the Constitution was derived, i have seen stated (but cannot remember where or the man's name who was famous for being persecuted in england for his ideas).

in any case, examine 'your birth'. when you are born, do you not have the same rights as any other creature? do you not believe that a rabbit at least has the right to run from a fox? that hawks may fight for food? that the large eat the small, yet the small can escape or use what means they may have to fight back? where have you been living? that men should take these rights away, and one willingly consents, says something about the person involved.

therefore, i only pay taxes because otherwise, surrogates of the rulers would come to my door, or try to take my possessions. i bribe them to leave me alone, since consequences of different behaviour would be severe. the government does NOT have my consent to spend my taxes as they please. when they try to brainwash me to believe that i am a subject, and must think as they wish me to, i will not. i really do not care what paper they write.

if anyone is happy with the way their taxes are being spent, then by all means, carry on. do not expect me to march in lock step beside you. i am not a lemming.

[Hamburglar]

let me try to make this as dirt simple as i can...to say that the government derives its power from a piece of paper is a wrong thought. the government derives its power, in all cases, from the consent of the governed. to think otherwise is to believe in the 'divine authority of kings' (read some history, if you have not-perhaps more is necessary). if one is so submissive as to believe they need any piece of paper to 'designate their rights', or that the government can do as it pleases without the consent of the governed, then one has not observed history, and does not understand the concept of 'natural born man', from which the Constitution was derived, i have seen stated (but cannot remember where or the man's name who was famous for being persecuted in england for his ideas).

in any case, examine 'your birth'. when you are born, do you not have the same rights as any other creature? do you not believe that a rabbit at least has the right to run from a fox? that hawks may fight for food? that the large eat the small, yet the small can escape or use what means they may have to fight back? where have you been living? that men should take these rights away, and one willingly consents, says something about the person involved.

therefore, i only pay taxes because otherwise, surrogates of the rulers would come to my door, or try to take my possessions. i bribe them to leave me alone, since consequences of different behaviour would be severe. the government does NOT have my consent to spend my taxes as they please. when they try to brainwash me to believe that i am a subject, and must think as they wish me to, i will not. i really do not care what paper they write.

if anyone is happy with the way their taxes are being spent, then by all means, carry on. do not expect me to march in lock step beside you. i am not a lemming.

Reb, don't mock my understanding of global/American history. You can quote "consent of the governed" all damn day, but by doing so you demonstrate a fatally misconstrued view. There is no divine authority of kings in American politics. You can view it that way, but you are devastatingly wrong. By virtue of every election, no matter how rigged, cheated, stolen, etc there is always a revolving consent. That piece of paper - literally transfers your power to the government which it constitutes. Perhaps it is you who needs to develop a stronger understanding of the evolution of American politics, and stop whining about the fact that it doesn't resemble 1776.

[Profit]

let me try to make this as dirt simple as i can...to say that the government derives its power from a piece of paper is a wrong thought. the government derives its power, in all cases, from the consent of the governed. to think otherwise is to believe in the 'divine authority of kings' (read some history, if you have not-perhaps more is necessary). if one is so submissive as to believe they need any piece of paper to 'designate their rights', or that the government can do as it pleases without the consent of the governed, then one has not observed history, and does not understand the concept of 'natural born man', from which the Constitution was derived, i have seen stated (but cannot remember where or the man's name who was famous for being persecuted in england for his ideas).

in any case, examine 'your birth'. when you are born, do you not have the same rights as any other creature? do you not believe that a rabbit at least has the right to run from a fox? that hawks may fight for food? that the large eat the small, yet the small can escape or use what means they may have to fight back? where have you been living? that men should take these rights away, and one willingly consents, says something about the person involved.


Animals do not have rights in any sense of the word. The rabbit does not have a right to run from the fox, the fox does not have the right to run after the rabbit. Either one simply has the ability to run from or after the other. There is not such thins as natural law. Where does it come from? From god (or whatever you would call the creator? No? Perhaps along with gravity and electromagnetic forces the big band created natural rights for all organisms?

History is not the story of people fighting against tyranny to regain their natural rights. History (if that is really how you want to view it) is the story of people fighting to attain privileges.

[Jinglish]

Animals do not have rights in any sense of the word. The rabbit does not have a right to run from the fox, the fox does not have the right to run after the rabbit. Either one simply has the ability to run from or after the other. There is not such thins as natural law. Where does it come from? From god (or whatever you would call the creature? No? Perhaps along with gravity and electromagnetic forces the big band created natural rights for all organisms?

History is not the story of people fighting against tyranny to regain their natural rights. History (if that is really how you want to view it) is the story of people fighting to attain privileges.Are you saying that, as an example, there would be nothing inherently wrong with murder or theft if those things were not prohibited by law?

[reb]

Animals do not have rights in any sense of the word. The rabbit does not have a right to run from the fox, the fox does not have the right to run after the rabbit. Either one simply has the ability to run from or after the other. There is not such thins as natural law. Where does it come from? From god (or whatever you would call the creature? No? Perhaps along with gravity and electromagnetic forces the big band created natural rights for all organisms?

History is not the story of people fighting against tyranny to regain their natural rights. History (if that is really how you want to view it) is the story of people fighting to attain privileges.

then that is YOUR perspective. may you be of great cheer, submissive one. failing to recognize the rabbit's rights, you have failed to recognize your own.

[Profit]

Are you saying that, as an example, there would be nothing inherently wrong with murder or theft if those things were not prohibited by law?

Ohhh boy. I think the post is pretty clear about natural rights in terms of political liberties. This is not a discussion about morality.





Profit added to this post, 10 minutes and 34 seconds later...

then that is YOUR perspective. may you be of great cheer, submissive one. failing to recognize the rabbit's rights, you have failed to recognize your own.

Failing to answer the question of the origin of natural rights you fail to.....oh never mind, master is calling.

[Plane Stress]

Where do you expect the government to get money if not from taxes? Social security, on the other hand... is absolutely a crime in my opinion.

[Jinglish]

Ohhh boy. I think the post is pretty clear about natural rights in terms of political liberties. This is not a discussion about morality.No, there's not that much of a distinction in this case. Compulsory taxation is simply theft by the government if you're paying for stuff you don't want. (In my case, stuff like social security. I'll put up with taxes to support things I actually take advantage of, such as law enforcement.) I've never given them permission to use my money to fund programs or agencies that I do not support and/or never plan on taking advantage of, and if I refuse to pay, I get thrown in jail. People can bicker about the morality of theft and murder as much as they want since that's completely subjective, but doesn't a human being have the right to that which he or she owns?





Jinglish added to this post, 2 minutes and 52 seconds later...

Where do you expect the government to get money if not from taxes? Social security, on the other hand... is absolutely a crime in my opinion.Well, if there is to be any kind of government, there has to be some taxation, but you can't force people to pay if they don't wish to take part in the services the government offers with that revenue. Social Security is something I have no wish to take part in, but the only way one can get out of it is by being a paranoid evangelical who thinks that an SSN equals the mark of the beast.

[reb]

Where do you expect the government to get money if not from taxes? Social security, on the other hand... is absolutely a crime in my opinion.

fuck 'em. let 'em get gainful employment! the question is, more or less, when is 'enough' too much. and they passed too much long ago-i think 1909. i have seen a copy of the first '1040'. it was very simple. now they made jobs for 'legion'; i guess they had to. no one would control breeding then, either. again...fuck 'em. let them go dig ditches like some of the rest of us have had to....they think they are royalty with all the perquisites of the hapsburgs.

Profit, you want to tangle 'original rights' up with your beliefs about religion. i am not gonna go there. either you believe that we are born 'equal' or you do not. dig into your belief about animals not having rights...see if you can find the source of that belief. see if that source shocks you.

sources...lol! screw a source. you either believe you have rights, or you are one of the 'masses who have no rights unless they are given to you'. where do those who give you your rights get the right to give them to you? a conundrum, certainly. study merry ol' england and the dark ages. the same 'no rights' is what people hand over when they join a strict religious sect, or buy into aethism so hard, they cannot see the taboo against knowing who they are. how funny...

the 'origin of rights' is between your ears.

[Profit]

I'll put up with taxes to support things I actually take advantage of, such as law enforcement.) I've never given them permission to use my money to fund programs or agencies that I do not support and/or never plan on taking advantage of, and if I refuse to pay, I get thrown in jail.

Do you have grandparents or are your parents over 65?

[Jinglish]

Do you have grandparents or are your parents over 65?Yes, I have grandparents, and I would choose to support them if they needed it. However, I still haven't gotten an explanation as to why it's supposed to be my responsibility to support a failing welfare system that takes part of the money that I could be using to directly support my relatives and instead puts it in one massive pool while skimming some off to support the bureaucracy that organizes that pool. Should I not have the choice of whether or not I contribute to the system, and thus whether or not I receive benefits?

[blueback]

So, simply because I was born here (obviously not a matter of my choice) and cannot yet leave, I've given my consent to have a portion of my wages garnished? Please, do explain.
Okay.
The government enforces the peace that you rely on. It is allowed to do things that no person is allowed to do, so that everyone can be forced to respect everyone else's basic rights. It's the social contract. Google it. Without taxes the government wouldn't be able to hold up its end of the contract and civilization would collapse, making you much worse off than you are now. If you don't like the current balance being struck between being totally on your own and being totally owned, you can get involved in politics or you can leave. It's not like you're incarcerated here. You can find pretty much whatever tax situation you want somewhere in the world. Vote with your feet.

let me try to make this as dirt simple as i can...to say that the government derives its power from a piece of paper is a wrong thought. the government derives its power, in all cases, from the consent of the governed.

Sort of. You are talking about the difference between a legitimate and illegitimate government. Plenty of governments are basically just criminal enterprises. Fortunately, the United States government is not, no matter how short it may fall of the theoretical ideal.

when you are born, do you not have the same rights as any other creature? do you not believe that a rabbit at least has the right to run from a fox? that hawks may fight for food? that the large eat the small, yet the small can escape or use what means they may have to fight back? where have you been living? that men should take these rights away, and one willingly consents, says something about the person involved.

You're talking about the difference between the state of nature and the social contract. In the state of nature everyone has the right to do everything. However, this means everyone has the right to kill anyone at anytime. Because of this right, no one is going to trust anyone else. The only way for a group to form is for everyone in it to voluntarily give up the right to kill the others. But, without enforcement, someone will realize that they can take advantage of the fact that everyone else was being honest. So, the social contract is formed when everyone gives up certain rights to an entity that enforces the contract. That entity is allowed, through the consent of the governed, to do the things that none of the governed are allowed to do so that anyone who breaks the contract is punished in such a way that they do not benefit, and in fact suffer, from breaking the contract.

That is why a rabbit has the right to run away from a fox, but a citizen does not have the right to run away from the police. If people are allowed to take back the rights that everyone gave up to create the contract, the contract will break down and everyone will suffer.

therefore, i only pay taxes because otherwise, surrogates of the rulers would come to my door, or try to take my possessions. i bribe them to leave me alone, since consequences of different behaviour would be severe.

Yeah. It's too bad that, unless you live a hermit's existence, you are going to be paying protection to someone. Period. You might as well get over it now cuz there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. At least in America, and most of the world for that matter, you get more than you give.

if anyone is happy with the way their taxes are being spent, then by all means, carry on. do not expect me to march in lock step beside you. i am not a lemming.

Right. . .does that mean you're politically active? Are you trying to work within the system to change the way taxes are spent? Are you taking a leadership role? If not, you don't have any reason to complain.

either you believe that we are born 'equal' or you do not.

If we are born equal, why are some people born frail and sickly while others are born healthy and strong? Why are some born smart and others born stupid? Why are some born into wealthy families and others born into poverty? What is this equality you are talking about if it is obviously not regarding health, intellect, status, etc?

dig into your belief about animals not having rights...see if you can find the source of that belief. see if that source shocks you.

Animals have the right to absolutely everything.
That is because a right is that which is not denied you by a more powerful actor.
You might want to read that again, because that is the definition of the word you are using. It is the only consistent way to interpret the concept. Rights don't mean anything outside of an imbalance of power.

where do those who give you your rights get the right to give them to you? a conundrum, certainly. study merry ol' england and the dark ages. the same 'no rights' is what people hand over when they join a strict religious sect, or buy into aethism so hard, they cannot see the taboo against knowing who they are. how funny...

Rights are "granted" by those more powerful.

The US government is so well conceived because the founders figured out how to structure an equal balance of power. The people give up their rights to the government and the government gives up its rights to the people. The people must obey the laws, like paying taxes, and the government must obey the will of the people. The dynamic balance is the only way yet discovered to ensure that neither group takes so much advantage of the other that civilization breaks down. The balance goes back and forth, that is inevitable, but as long as it doesn't break it is good enough.

[TemperateSloth]

...no one would control breeding then, either...Reb, this could be a bit OT, but what about those people, such as myself, who decided in his early twenties that he would never father a child by choice.

Since "Cap and trade" is simply another name for a "carbon tax" (which, iirc, former President Clinton attempted to implement, only to be foiled by one of his own Democratic Senators - one who represented Oklahoma).

So, if we are to have a "Cap and trade" tax here in the U.S., why shouldn't I, now a fifty-something, receive a $5,000 tax credit on income taxes each year for voluntarily not having any children? Note I stated a tax credit, not a tax deduction.

And why shouldn't a married couple, who either voluntarily or being medically incapable of having children of their own, receive a $10,000 tax credit?

And to encourage adoption and caring for foster children, perhaps people who adopt no more than two children or care for no more than two foster children should receive a tax credit as well.

If the claim is made that climate change is primarily caused by the species, Homo Sapiens, then it makes logical sense to utilize tax policy to reward those with either no children or only one child -- while phasing out the tax credits for those with more than two children per family.

[larkin]

let's step back for a minute. are we really debating the concept of taxation? we couldn't exist as a country (at least, not one anyone would want to live in) without it.

I'm assuming I'm misunderstanding this argument on some level. Feel free to explain what taxes you think are "constitutional" and which ones you think aren't, to say nothing of spending.

[Muadib]

You also fail to remember that in the concept of a democratic republic the opinion of the minority is just that an opinion. By virtue of the system the decisions are (theoretically) made to be best for the most people and as such if you do not like them you have three choices, campaign to change it, buckle down and live with it, or leave the country for one you prefer. The fourth option, which is disobedience, is a failure because you solve nothing. Society transcends the concept of everyone has the right to do anything. By living in this complex structure we call civilization we agree to exercise our freedom to its fullest extent, until that freedom impeaches someone else freedom, at which point your actions become criminal.

[aku chi]

let's step back for a minute. are we really debating the concept of taxation? we couldn't exist as a country (at least, not one anyone would want to live in) without it.

I'm assuming I'm misunderstanding this argument on some level. Feel free to explain what taxes you think are "constitutional" and which ones you think aren't, to say nothing of spending.

Well, I thought we were talking about transfer taxes (taking wealth from some group of people and distributing it to some other group of people). That was the impression I got from the first two posts and responded to. It is arguable whether Congress has the power to spend taxed revenue on arbitrary individuals or groups.

If we are talking about taxation in general, I agree with blueback. Taxation is a social contract that is necessary for the government to provide public goods and services that would not be efficient or practical in the free market (defense, a system of laws, a system of law enforcement, and a judicial system among others). Taxes cannot be voluntary for the system to work; this is a neccessary evil.

[larkin]

Well, I thought we were talking about transfer taxes (taking wealth from some group of people and distributing it to some other group of people). That was the impression I got from the first two posts and responded to.

Transfer tax refers to the estate tax and arguably, the capital gains tax; is that what you're referring to? But I'll let Reb speak for himself about what he was referring to.

It is arguable whether Congress has the power to spend taxed revenue on arbitrary individuals or groups.

Every time Congress spends anything, it's going to benefit certain groups or individuals more than others. I don't drive a car, do I get to object to the government spending money on roads? Where are my pedestrian thruways, dammit?

If we are talking about taxation in general, I agree with blueback. Taxation is a social contract that is necessary for the government to provide public goods and services that would not be efficient or practical in the free market (defense, a system of laws, a system of law enforcement, and a judicial system among others). Taxes cannot be voluntary for the system to work; this is a neccessary evil.

But, yes, this is my point, generally.

[Tristan]

Well, I thought we were talking about transfer taxes (taking wealth from some group of people and distributing it to some other group of people). That was the impression I got from the first two posts and responded to. It is arguable whether Congress has the power to spend taxed revenue on arbitrary individuals or groups.

The modern idea of general welfare first diverged from the neoclassical one, (I'm estimating here) probably after the Civil War. I read a neat blog remarking on Webster's 1828 dictionary definition for welfare, and perhaps the dictionary was coming to grips with the evolution of the word. But I think that we needed a extreme application of "promoting the general welfare," such as remaking ourselves after a huge war. The real power lies not with the dictionary, but with such events. The Reconstruction of the South is perhaps the first of three definitive struggles of the United States which played a role in carrying us away from the framers' original intent concerning the General Welfare:The Civil War
The Great Depression
World War II

The civil war was when we first accepted the idea that in order for the country to hold together, we may have to be our brother's keeper. The Great Depression signaled that the freewheeling society upheld by the Constitution was not sustainable. World War II showed us the need for government to command vast resources, tested its efficacy with them, and entrenched some of these resources in government ever after.

At this point, the effects of abusing the General Welfare Clause are fully realized, and in absolute accordance with James Madison's view:If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of State legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.He went on the declare that such a regime would defeat the purpose of the Constitution, as it was intended to charter a "limited government" in his words.

I brought up the three events to show how the circumstances had be dire, very dire indeed, for us to kick our charter to the curb and just do what seems right. I don't rise to the defense of Madison because I think he's holy and apostolic (though he's a damn sight more clever than any politician today). I defend Madison because I think original intent must be accounted for, and where our definition of "General Welfare" diverges from his, the charter must be revised in order for action to be taken. I don't think the actions we've taken for the General Welfare have undergone this necessary rigor. Welfare spending, as of today, is unconstitutional.

[larkin]

I defend Madison because I think original intent must be accounted for, and where our definition of "General Welfare" diverges from his, the charter must be revised in order for action to be taken. I don't think the actions we've taken for the General Welfare have undergone this necessary rigor. Welfare spending, as of today, is unconstitutional.

Your whole post goes on to point out that welfare spending is, in fact, constitutional, although you don't personally agree with it and think it should all be revised. For its own good! I'm glad you deeply believe in a strict interpretation of our founding fathers' documents, so much so that you - and Madison! - know what's better for them than they do. You alone will save the documents from themselves.

But then the post ends with a statement that you've taken pains to clearly disprove. Fascinating.

[aku chi]

Your whole post goes on to point out that welfare spending is, in fact, constitutional, although you don't personally agree with it and think it should all be revised. For its own good! I'm glad you deeply believe in a strict interpretation of our founding fathers' documents, so much so that you - and Madison! - know what's better for them than they do. You alone will save the documents from themselves.

But then the post ends with a statement that you've taken pains to clearly disprove. Fascinating.
Hopefully I don't misrepresent Tristan with my post. I encourage him to clear up his point of view if I do.

1) James Madison was the chief author of The Constitution of the United States of America. When trying to understand this document, reading Madison's thoughts on The Constitution is the next best thing to reading the text of The Constitution itself.

2) Tristan made it clear that the definition of the word welfare has changed in the 200+ years since The Constitution was written. It could be argued that the definition at the time of signing is the relevant definition when interpretting The Constitution.

3) I believe you misunderstood Tristan's point with regards to revision. In his opinion, "Welfare spending, as of today, is unconstitutional." If we would like to permit Congress to pass legislation like this, The Constitution should be revised. If, however, we don't revise The Constitution, we might have a reasonable claim that a great deal of contemporary legislation is unconstitutional.

---

And my additional point, clearly explained in my first post in this topic, is that the 'general welfare' clause is not connected with Congressional spending, only taxation. It has been a legitimate debate, at least throughout the ninteenth century, whether Congress has unenumerable powers that include the power to spend (otherwise arbitrarily) for the general welfare.

[reb]

The government enforces the peace that you rely on.

bullshit. 'the government' here takes an hour to come if i should need them. the loaded mossberg 12 gauge by my door, and the fact that i walk the property with it over my shoulder from time to time enforces the peace i rely on. you have no concept of what i am speaking of, because you rely on 'logic' and not reality.

as usual, you love these long posts, and i'm not going to expend the effort to hit every point. i'm not obsessed with 'winning'; i don't care if i 'lose'. neither you nor your surrogates are going to do a damn thing about me, and your reliance on detail and 'winning an online debate' is a weakness, not a strength.

i will complain all i like; i will postulate all i like. you have a narrow view of how the world works, and are stuck within it. evidently, blueback, you are happy to defend 'having a government'; suck up to it. they love people with ideas like yours. if you look around you, you will see that the u.s.s. of a. government has already morphed 'out of Constitutionality'; people are incarcerated at random, and rewarded without any merit in some cases; any fairness which i would recognize is hidden beneath the money required to go to court to defend oneself. when you have lived a bit more, perhaps your opinions will change. in the meantime, you have a fine, detail oriented mind, but do not see beyond the details.

do as little joe biden suggests....pay your taxes, because 'it's patriotic'. never mind the system is set up to screw segments of society that are undesirable to the rulers. lol!

[Muadib]

Life isnt fair and no government ever has been. But as every tyrant has ever said Men Must Be Governed. Left to our own devices man would wipe itself out. People become paranoid, irritable, and dangerous when they cannot rely on a system to help them (no matter how broken it is). Unfortunately said government needs money to function and as such requires taxes. I will not delve into the constitutionality of the current US governments decisions because that is a matter of interpretation and personal belief as to which style of governing suites the nation best. As to you and your shot gun, all i have to say is it is the hallmark of civilization to be able to go about your business and your life without the need to be armed. Unfortunatley we arent perfect yet. But the moment you turn that weapon against an agent of the government you void the social contract that exists between you and your fellow men...and then you are one of those being being randomly imprisoned. Although I admit you do have the right to whine all you want. As well, no one can win or loose this argument, in the end winning an online debate is like winning the special olympics

[reb]

Muadib, i would not have said that last...i would have said 'it's like winning a turd wrapped in a pretty box with shiny ribbon'. lol!

i hope we never get to the point i have to consider whether to turn anything against an agent of the government...any government. i pay their 'bakshish' so they will leave me alone. when the day comes that is not enough, i reserve the right, as a free person, to make my compromises as i see fit.

were the u.s. to be invaded, i would fight for the Constitution, but not for this government as it has existed in the last 30 years. should washington be taken over, they are on their own. frankly, it would tickle me to hilarity to see those fat thieves run like chickens with a coyote in their midst. it would also be quite funny to see the handwringing amongst the 'government will save us' crowd. some may have to be governed...and some may not. a tyrant? well, there have been many, and i do not accept their opinions any more than i accept anything else at face value.

go back before the u.s. tax code....there were economic cycles that the government did not like. they could not control the economy. the reason for the income tax was to control economic cycles (by having control of the money supply and commerce). i disagree with that control, as i believe man diddles with the nature of natural cycles to his own disadvantage. it's a very broad thought process. i'm watching in the years i have left to see if the theory bears out.

a government? one like this? for 30 years, i watched from the inside. they are far more screwed up than you paint. way beyond 'not perfect'. maybe yours is doing better than ours, i cannot say. you will get to watch and see.

[Muadib]

Actually an interesting note about income tax and Canada. Our income tax was instituted during WWI as an emergency and temporary tax...we still have it today..and 14% sales tax to boot.

[larkin]

1) James Madison was the chief author of The Constitution of the United States of America. When trying to understand this document, reading Madison's thoughts on The Constitution is the next best thing to reading the text of The Constitution itself.

I'm aware Madison wrote it, but the Constitution was adopted by 55 delegates at convention and ratified by the states. It's a consensus document for a reason; undoubtedly some of the other founding fathers would have differing opinions.

2) Tristan made it clear that the definition of the word welfare has changed in the 200+ years since The Constitution was written. It could be argued that the definition at the time of signing is the relevant definition when interpretting The Constitution.

One of the best things about our constitution is that it does leave some of these questions open to interpretation, so it's a more adaptable, flexible document. Reading it by the definitions used at the time of signing makes about as much sense as reading the bible that way. It is no longer 1787; scattering chicken bones to divine the intentions of our founding fathers, rather than taking them at word, seems more than a little counterproductive.

3) I believe you misunderstood Tristan's point with regards to revision. In his opinion, "Welfare spending, as of today, is unconstitutional." If we would like to permit Congress to pass legislation like this, The Constitution should be revised. If, however, we don't revise The Constitution, we might have a reasonable claim that a great deal of contemporary legislation is unconstitutional.

Perhaps I did. The taxing and spending clause of the constitution clearly lays out the authority to, well, tax and spend, unsurprisingly. Which is what Tristan acknowledges in quoting James Madison's general concerns about the level of spending, not reflected in the document itself. So in what way is welfare spending unconstitutional? You touch on this here:

And my additional point, clearly explained in my first post in this topic, is that the 'general welfare' clause is not connected with Congressional spending, only taxation. It has been a legitimate debate, at least throughout the ninteenth century, whether Congress has unenumerable powers that include the power to spend (otherwise arbitrarily) for the general welfare.

Again, you may think the government spends too much, but that's not the same as not having the authority, as the spending being "unconstitutional", a loaded and misused word at best.

But in the larger sense, my original point - yes, some conservatives object to the Great Society. And then some would prefer to roll it back further to before the New Deal. And then some would prefer to roll it back even further, with a flat tax, to before 1913 and progressive taxation. And now we're here, re-animating a debate from the nineteenth century, about the constitutional authority of our government to tax and spend at all.

So my question remains, how far back do people really want to go? Do we want to have a government at all? Reb seems to think no, but I'm throwing it out to the thread.

[Muadib]

As I just said...MEN MUST BE GOVERNED...so if we like it or not we need a government of some sort

[Visum]

Yes, the lovely parasite that has finely wrapped it's tentacle around America's poorly beating heart. The US is bankrupt! Hellooooo! As far as I am concerned the tax and govern system has run it's course and had it's way with us. Next...world governance.
Piss in a hole if you like, or the wind for that matter.
Here is an example of when there was no prez or king. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)





Visum added to this post, 225 minutes and 42 seconds later...

US gov. debt, expenditures and income/taxes graph.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[tokjd79]

Yes, the lovely parasite that has finely wrapped it's tentacle around America's poorly beating heart. The US is bankrupt! Hellooooo! As far as I am concerned the tax and govern system has run it's course and had it's way with us. Next...world governance.
Piss in a hole if you like, or the wind for that matter.



So what do we do when this World Government enacts a tax and govern system? I have little faith in my own government let alone the combined governments of the world under one house!

There is only one person at the end of the day that I trust to protect my rights, my money, and my general welfare and that person is me. Any government of any size that tries to impede me can get bent!

World government would fail just as hard as the U.S is right now. Smaller is better.

[Tristan]

Your whole post goes on to point out that welfare spending is, in fact, constitutional, although you don't personally agree with it and think it should all be revised. For its own good! I'm glad you deeply believe in a strict interpretation of our founding fathers' documents, so much so that you - and Madison! - know what's better for them than they do. You alone will save the documents from themselves.

But then the post ends with a statement that you've taken pains to clearly disprove. Fascinating.

My first remark on constitutionality was at the end: that the charter's original intent needs to be observed. By the definition of General Welfare set in the time of the constitution, our current welfare structure has no legal basis for existence. Due diligence would be to pass a constitutional amendment expanding the meaning of General Welfare. I wonder if such a sweeping grab for power would pass, since it'd lack the faux-constitutional "living document" veneer, and gradual feel, that Grant and FDR's actual legislation had.

Furthermore, in the little paragraph where I said, "The civil war was when we first accepted the idea..." et al., I was observing the ideas born from the Civil War, Depression, and WW2, and not necessarily my own personal take on them. I don't hold with the statist dogma we adopted in those times.

2) Tristan made it clear that the definition of the word welfare has changed in the 200+ years since The Constitution was written. It could be argued that the definition at the time of signing is the relevant definition when interpretting The Constitution.I wish I could just state things succinctly like this. I have a habit of cloaking my main point in the murky shroud of its explanation.

[larkin]

By the definition of General Welfare set in the time of the constitution, our current welfare structure has no legal basis for existence. Due diligence would be to pass a constitutional amendment expanding the meaning of General Welfare.

Here's the actual text of the clause:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

You want it refined based on something Madison said, combined with your belief the meaning has changed, fine. (Again, I would reiterate the document does not belong to Madison and Madison alone; if they wanted to include specifics, they would or should have included the specifics. They didn't for a reason.)

But that you think more definition is necessary is not a legal judgment, and it's certainly not the same as saying there's no legal basis. The clause above is the legal basis.

Also, it has already been refined - through the process of judicial review. But you didn't like the outcome so now you want an amendment specifically defining it. And worse still, you think the burden for the amendment should be on the interpretation that has in use for the at least 100+ years and supported by the judiciary, that we should just overturn years of legal precedent because of something Madison said and the hairs on the back of your neck?

Well, have at it, the judiciary awaits.

[reb]

Yes, the lovely parasite that has finely wrapped it's tentacle around America's poorly beating heart. The US is bankrupt! Hellooooo! As far as I am concerned the tax and govern system has run it's course and had it's way with us. Next...world governance.
Piss in a hole if you like, or the wind for that matter.
Here is an example of when there was no prez or king. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Visum, that link is a perfect jewel of discussion, explanation and analysis. i had never heard of this fella-thanks. i saved it; may see if i can find his book.

here's my basic theory. there are some old genetics that hold the memory of freedom. the governments will have to wipe them out, as much as they have to wipe out independent thinking, in order to completely rule all the habitable places. i, whether i like it or not, have been the recipient of a few of those genes. i do not need a ruler, except to meaure with. i need no government to take care of myself...i have managed to avoid the madoffs of the world, the charlie mansons and others on my own. i have rarely had help in doing so from anyone else. my principle is in line with the one reagan proposed-let the user pay for the service. if they cannot, let them do without the service. or for that matter, starve.

if one has excess, then one has an obligation (at least i feel that i do, some of the readership may be more grasping) to find worthy people and try to help them become more self sufficient. i do not feel the government has any right to decide who these 'worthy' are....they are there to provide for the common defense, to build roads and bridges (for those who would not walk, or ride a mule, as i would) and do general things as are laid out in Visum's link. the government has far overstepped their bounds in this country...they have become no more useful than sodom hussein, or ahmadenijad, or pol pot, or a host of others. many of you have not seen 'these people' in person, or the primary results of their acts. i have. Muadib, from the little i know of him, has seen some of them...and yet you seem to have faith Muadib. i will not question-each has a right to believe as they wish. our right to our persons within society is highly in question, now, however.

larkin, it is far too late to take anything to THIS judiciary. the endpoint of that came in the war of northern aggression. at that time, the Constitution of the United States was examined, and overturned. once in, you may not get out. once you are well in, what is yours, is now 'the guvnahs'.

[larkin]

the government has far overstepped their bounds in this country...they have become no more useful than sodom hussein, or ahmadenijad, or pol pot, or a host of others. many of you have not seen 'these people' in person, or the primary results of their acts. i have.

I've no idea what you mean by "these people" - you mean the dictators/politicians themselves? But I cannot help but believe that if you had actually seen the results of the actions of at least Pol Pot and Hussein in person, there's no way you'd be so casually comparing our government to theirs. Does rhetoric comparing the situation in the United States today to the Cambodian genocide strike you as at all excessive? Why not just go ahead and make the Hitler reference?

larkin, it is far too late to take anything to THIS judiciary. the endpoint of that came in the war of northern aggression. at that time, the Constitution of the United States was examined, and overturned. once in, you may not get out. once you are well in, what is yours, is now 'the guvnahs'.

One might have suggested that a thread about government went off the rails when a link provided starts with a quote from the bible advocating that government is unnecessary if only "every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (If only!) But that was before the reference to the Civil War as a "war of northern aggression."

When I followed up the legitimate question of how far back libertarians and conservatives want to take this country with the question "do you want a government at all?", I had (rather naively, it seems) actually posed it as a rhetorical question. I honestly didn't believe that there was a portion of the libertarian party in this country that were, by belief anyway, so surprisingly close to anarchists.

So why post at all on the thread? To the more reasonable libertarians (and I still believe there are many): set clear boundaries in your party, disavow this excess openly or consign yourselves permanently to the fate of Lyndon LaRouche.

[Visum]

Such ignorance and conformity. Humans find solace and comfort in that which they have experienced and think they understand.
I do not advocate a world government.
Leadership is influence and influence provides order. There are as many ways to influence as there are individuals on this planet. When you have homogeneous communication and beliefs, you have cultural influence. A family, a community, a city, a country, all can have culture that provides boundaries for social order. Some are of the mind that humankind must have governance in the form of a president, constitution, and some form of representation of individual opinion. There are societies that yet exist in this world that do not have any of these "necessary" structures, yet they function. Why? Because the people choose to live in harmony. I am of the mind that theirs is a culture that is much more solid and strong than one that needs a paper to define it's societal boundaries.

Forced redistribution of services and wealth are signs of a week society, and points to heterogeneous cultures and values. It is only a matter of time in a society like this, that the paper will be rewritten to reflect the people's beliefs. Usually those that have the biggest clubs gain the right to speak.

[Ray9]

taking my tax dollars and giving them without my consent to someone else is theft. the country was not set up that way...this social engineering is a modern conceit.


I remember having those thoughts when I was 16 and looked at my first paycheck. Hey, wait a minute. Some of my money is missing. That was 1963. Well, things have gone from bad to worse since then. When the founders spoke about promoting the general welfare they definately did not have in mind creating a giant beaurocracy whose business is to redistribute personal wealth in such a way as to make a strong man weak by making a weak man strong. Or worded a different way to make the strong enslaved, the government strong and the weak dependant. The founders never envisioned a world where taxation would be a tool to expand government by sapping the incentive of the individual to be self-sustaining, self-reliant and self-supporting. The sad result of this "Great (taxation) Society" has been to unleash the worst characteristics of mankind thereby propagating millions upon millions of multi-generational, malingering misfits whose only usless purpose is to cash the next welfare check.

[reb]

I've no idea what you mean by "these people" - you mean the dictators/politicians themselves? But I cannot help but believe that if you had actually seen the results of the actions of at least Pol Pot and Hussein in person, there's no way you'd be so casually comparing our government to theirs. Does rhetoric comparing the situation in the United States today to the Cambodian genocide strike you as at all excessive? Why not just go ahead and make the Hitler reference?

what i mean is, i have been in the bureaucracy. i have handled your tax $. i have seen what is done with those $. i have seen the direct influence, and heard from others i worked with of their experience, how congress pushes money where they want it. when i say push, i mean 'force'. when they allow lives to be ruined (such as poison marketed as 'medicine', or bernie madoff to steal and leave people penniless, or enron-i know some ex-enron workers who are still struggling), because their focus is elsewhere, they are only a step away from pol pot. negligence is nearly as bad as intent (even under the standards of YOUR law). if we go back to the indian wars, their predecessors WERE pol pot. do you think the quality of people in congress has improved from those days? if you say yes, you will make me laugh aloud. the fact that they slyly are taking away freedom, is that different than directly murdering people? slavery takes several forms...the chief form is between the ears. if you choose to believe that 'this government' has your best interests as a citizen at heart, then i am not going to be able to convince you otherwise. perhaps i don't even care to...as your life is yours to learn from. if you don't want to learn from mine, it's not my problem.



One might have suggested that a thread about government went off the rails when a link provided starts with a quote from the bible advocating that government is unnecessary if only "every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (If only!) But that was before the reference to the Civil War as a "war of northern aggression."

you will believe what you want; what's in the history books still hints at the facts-they have not been purged..yet...lincoln left sumter's garrison in place to have an excuse to start a war. do you not think if you join a club, you should be allowed to leave? i damn sure do. anything other sounds like the mafia to me.

When I followed up the legitimate question of how far back libertarians and conservatives want to take this country with the question "do you want a government at all?", I had (rather naively, it seems) actually posed it as a rhetorical question. I honestly didn't believe that there was a portion of the libertarian party in this country that were, by belief anyway, so surprisingly close to anarchists.

you have obviously not been 'out in the country'. you think my views are unreasonable...lol! you need to talk to some working country people. the polls are now starting to show 'public sentiment'. the polls are curving behind reality. do you live in a large city? they are somewhat isolated from the country, and have no clue what people think 'out here'.

So why post at all on the thread? To the more reasonable libertarians (and I still believe there are many): set clear boundaries in your party, disavow this excess openly or consign yourselves permanently to the fate of Lyndon LaRouche.

lol! why post anywhere at all. i'm trying to share 30 years of working for/around/with the bureaucracy, and you want to believe what you want. that's fine. really, travel around, go sit at a truck stop and have lunch. listen to what people around you are saying. you may get 'a reality check'. it sounds to me like 'more reasonable libertarians' will take whichever shill one of the parties puts up, lay down, shut their mouths and be satisfied...is this your definition of a 'more reasonable libertarian'? thass funny. :)

i guess i'm not a reasonable libertarian, based on the implications of your words. i do not like or succumb to the party system. the parties are working for themselves, and neither of them has any Constitutional ground to stand on in my view. as i have said before, however, i do not depend on paper for my views...i depend on the free mind between my ears.

PS; Larkin, i want to pass on to you a little vignette from my time 'in the government'.

we had been working on negotiation of a $20 million contract for some time. we had convened in a hotel conference room for the latest meeting. had been there most of the day, arguing, counterpointing, showing charts, refiguring, arguing again. the contractor went out to do 'another run' of costs.

during this break, we got our coffee, and someone on the government team said to me 'you act like this is YOUR money.'.

i said, 'by God, it IS MY MONEY! you think about it. it's YOUR MONEY, TOO!'.

i was 'in trouble' a lot with both my management and contractors (as well as contractor supporters, aka 'congress' and the 'elected bureaucracy') for having this view. the heck with them...it IS MY MONEY. and yours, too. they did not 'give' it to me because i was 'pretty/kind/nice/sweet/underprivileged'-i worked for it. i busted my health for it. i put my heart into it. and they beat the crap out of me with every scheme they could think of for trying to support the taxpayer and the soldier.

if you rolll that round in your mind, deeply, you may be able to overcome your beliefs just a bit, and see what i am saying better. maybe not. i tried. that's all i can do.

i got to go water the sheep. later.

[larkin]

what i mean is, i have been in the bureaucracy. i have handled your tax $. i have seen what is done with those $. i have seen the direct influence, and heard from others i worked with of their experience, how congress pushes money where they want it. when i say push, i mean 'force'. when they allow lives to be ruined (such as poison marketed as 'medicine', or bernie madoff to steal and leave people penniless, or enron-i know some ex-enron workers who are still struggling), because their focus is elsewhere, they are only a step away from pol pot. [...] if you choose to believe that 'this government' has your best interests as a citizen at heart, then i am not going to be able to convince you otherwise. perhaps i don't even care to...as your life is yours to learn from. if you don't want to learn from mine, it's not my problem.

Still not the same as seeing the effects, in person, of Saddam Hussein or Pol Pot, as you claimed. I have also worked in the bureaucracy and seen where our tax dollars go. I would hardly claim it was a model of efficiency, but not so much worse than the for-profit company I worked for, either. Similarly, I don't believe that the government is the bestest and always benevolently has my interests at heart any more than I believe it is an evil conspiracy, comparable to genocidal dictators, designed solely to deprive me of my freedom. There is a difference between skepticism and serious paranoia. This is the sort of perspective I mean when I say reasonable, not prone to excess.

you have obviously not been 'out in the country'. you think my views are unreasonable...lol! you need to talk to some working country people. the polls are now starting to show 'public sentiment'. the polls are curving behind reality. do you live in a large city? they are somewhat isolated from the country, and have no clue what people think 'out here'. [...] really, travel around, go sit at a truck stop and have lunch. listen to what people around you are saying. you may get 'a reality check'.

Nice assumptions there. I was born in Kernersville, NC, which at the time was a town of about 500 people. Raised on a working farm, off and on, by my great-aunts. They were Republicans, but they would still laugh someone who seriously called the civil war "a war of northern aggression" out of the state. And they wouldn't for a minute accept the insinuation that any one person from Kernersville's viewpoint was a viewpoint shared by all "working country people", to say nothing of the Palin-esque bs that somehow any person from Kernersville's viewpoint was inherently more valuable than people living in cities or any other part of the country. Thankfully. Again, this is the sort of perspective I mean when I say reasonable.

But yes, you're right, we're both entitled to learn from our experiences.

[SirJac]

Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:

“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;

I'm confused, is giving billions in tax dollars and military weaponry to tinpot dictators as "aid" for the general defence or common welfare of the US?

[Muadib]

Depends on who the dictator is. For that matter probably no.

[reb]

got this on email-pertinent to my continual litany of 'lies, lies, damned lies'-credit Professor Williams (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):

Why not to believe anything coming out of congress...


A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2009

Washington's Lies

President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president and Congress. You say, "Williams, you don't show much trust in the White House and Congress." Let's check out their past dishonesty.
At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That's nine times Congress' prediction. Today's Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress?
Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: "Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services." Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is true.
Lies and deception are by no means restricted to modern times. During the legislative debate prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment, President Howard Taft and congressional supporters said that only the rich would ever pay federal income taxes. In 1916, only one-half of 1 percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today's dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy and dupe Americans into ratifying the 16th Amendment.
The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans -- or 41 percent of the U.S. population -- are completely outside the federal income tax system. These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?
Another big congressional lie is Social Security. Here's what a 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: "After the first 3 years -- that is to say, beginning in 1940 -- you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year ... beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year." Here's Congress's lying promise: "That is the most you will ever pay." Let's repeat that last sentence: "That is the most you will ever pay." Compare that to today's reality, including Medicare, which is 7.65 cents on each dollar that you earn up to nearly $107,000, which comes to $8,185.
The Social Security pamphlet closes with another lie: "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you ... The checks will come to you as a right." First, there's no Social Security account containing your money, but more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to Social Security payments.
We can thank public education for American gullibility.

************************************************** ************************************************** ***
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

[hubcap]

The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew how the current politicians are pilfering the treasury and handing it out to special interests........not to mention the taxation issue.

If I remember correctly it seems that taxation spawned the Revolution.

[jndiii]

Rights are "granted" by those more powerful.

The US government is so well conceived because the founders figured out how to structure an equal balance of power. The people give up their rights to the government and the government gives up its rights to the people. The people must obey the laws, like paying taxes, and the government must obey the will of the people. The dynamic balance is the only way yet discovered to ensure that neither group takes so much advantage of the other that civilization breaks down. The balance goes back and forth, that is inevitable, but as long as it doesn't break it is good enough.

The bold remark is false. The paragraph is partially true.

Any right "granted" by the government is no right at all if it can be arbitrarily reneged. The proper word for such a concept would be "permission."

Read the history of the Magna Carta. Essentially, King John's nobles pointedly told him that he was king only as long as he signed it and followed it. For many historians, this is the beginning of "rule of law." Reading it as "King John granted rights ..." would be an absurd interpretation of events.

The Declaration of Independence gives a working philosophical definition of rights as including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It is all about taking back naturally existing rights, not about granting rights to the people.

The US Constitution is unusual in that it is a compromise between two distinct governing philosophies: 1) that the powers of the government should be limited, and 2) that the rights of the people should be enumerated and protected. The debate between the two is a high-end philosophical argument. Those who believed that rights should be enumerated didn't believe that a theoretical limitation of government power was enough to protect rights. Those who believed in the limitation of government power believed that an enumeration of rights would specifically limit citizen's rights to those enumerated. Whichever philosophy you believe, both would agree on the point that the people determined their own rights, they just differed as to the means.

The pertinent part of the debate, however, is that part of the argument against the enumeration of rights was very much the fear of regarding "rights" as something "granted" by the Constitution. The 9th amendment, in fact, specifically says that the enumeration of rights does not imply that the people don't have other rights, which means that the Constitution literally does not "grant rights," but merely mentions a few that merit special protection.

Continuing the history lesson, the government did not "grant" the right of the vote to women, women organized and took it, via Constitutional means. Later, in the Civil Rights era of the 50s and 60s, minorities asserted their rights, which were eventually legally recognized. The only major historical counterexample is the Civil War, which resulted in making slavery not only illegal but unconstitutional: the slaves themselves did not assert their rights (which would have been impractical in any event, which is probably why this is the singular exception).

[reb]

hence, well supported by jndiii's excellent delineation, i return to 'your rights are between your ears'.

if you cannot grasp the concept of 'you are your own master', then you will have no rights. frankly, i do not believe one without conviction to assert and claim their rights deserves them in the first place.

from what i have seen of government in the past 30 years or so, they have reached this same conclusion...'the people deserve no rights, as they are incapable of claiming them.'

[hubcap]

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

[blueback]

Any right "granted" by the government is no right at all if it can be arbitrarily reneged. The proper word for such a concept would be "permission."

I didn't say rights came from the government, I said they came from "those more powerful."

Read the history of the Magna Carta. Essentially, King John's nobles pointedly told him that he was king only as long as he signed it and followed it. For many historians, this is the beginning of "rule of law." Reading it as "King John granted rights ..." would be an absurd interpretation of events.

The Magna Carta was FORCED onto King John by. . .those more powerful. It listed what RIGHTS he would be granted.

The reason the Magna Carta was a good deal was that it signalled the beginning of the end of the belief that a ruler was personally appointed by God to rule. Previously, people believed that God GRANTED a particular person the RIGHT to rule everyone else. God being the most powerful, could dictate rights to the ruler, who was more powerful than the people and could dictate rights to them. That system of government sucked, and eventually people realized it couldn't be the Truth.

It in no way invalidates the concept that "rights are those things a more powerful actor allows you to do." That's not wrong. In fact, it's as inescapable as gravity.

The Declaration of Independence gives a working philosophical definition of rights as including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It is all about taking back naturally existing rights, not about granting rights to the people.

You are touching on the correct idea.
ALL rights are "naturally occuring." Just try to do something nature doesn't want you to do.

Individuals can do absolutely anything they want, within the bounds of the laws of nature, at any time in any place. However, for people to form groups, they have to give up the right to do certain things. . .otherwise no one would live nearby. For other people to trust you, you have to give up your naturally occuring right to kill them (for example). These rights still exist, they are not "unexisted" when they are given up; they are simply given up TO another actor. That actor, the sovereign, is allowed to do the things the citizens aren't, so that it can enforce the social contract.

The problem is that power begets power, and governments tend to accumulate more power by gradually adding more limits to what their citizens can do. That is where the Constitution becomes such a good idea. It establishes a system in which the government is not sovereign, the people are. The government merely carries out the wishes of the people. The contract still has to be enforced, so the government has power, but the contract between the government and the people has to be enforced, so the people have power too. An equal balance keeps things from spiralling out of control in either direction; mob rule or authoritarianism.

The pertinent part of the debate, however, is that part of the argument against the enumeration of rights was very much the fear of regarding "rights" as something "granted" by the Constitution. The 9th amendment, in fact, specifically says that the enumeration of rights does not imply that the people don't have other rights, which means that the Constitution literally does not "grant rights," but merely mentions a few that merit special protection.

Rights are "granted" by NOT being denied. Your parents didn't have to TELL you that you had the right to leave your room whenever you wanted. However, because it was a right, they could deny you the right, and force you to stay in your room.

The increasing pace of technological change is shining a lot of light on this phenomenon. Technology allows us to do things that we couldn't do before, and until the government denies us the right to do those things, we still have the right to do them. For example, there are 3 miniguns floating around the US, because they were already owned by private individuals BEFORE it was made illegal to own miniguns. Until miniguns were invented, there was no reason to make ownership illegal. "Sexting" is when minors send sexual text and image messages to each other. Because laws already exist which prohibit the transmission (etc) of pornographic images of minors, minors who shared their own naked images are being charged with a crime. The action wasn't previously possible, but now that it is it happens to fall under a law that already exist, and until someone rewrites the law to be more sensible we will get "grandfather" cases just like with the miniguns. I think that does a pretty good job of illustrating how this way of thinking about rights is appropriate.

Continuing the history lesson, the government did not "grant" the right of the vote to women, women organized and took it, via Constitutional means. Later, in the Civil Rights era of the 50s and 60s, minorities asserted their rights, which were eventually legally recognized.

So, what you're saying is, a group of people made such a ruckus that "those more powerful" decided to grant them the right to do something. That is exactly what I'm saying.

The rights always exist. They cannot be unmade because they are a simple fact of existing. However, they aren't even worth talking about OUTSIDE of an imbalance of power. An individual, all alone in the world, doesn't worry about rights. A citizen, surrounded by hierarchies of power, worries a great deal about rights. It is examples of the US government responding to the will of its citizens, without a violent exchange of power, that so well illustrates the brilliance of the exchange of rights outlined in the Constitution. The government doesn't have the right to ignore what its citizens want. That is a huge leap forward in political history.

[hubcap]

I guess you missed this part: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You do know what unalienable means...........right?

The government is the people.

You do not have a naturally occurring right to kill people. Where the heck did that notion come from?

[Undead Bonzi]

I guess you missed this part: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You do know what unalienable means...........right?

The government is the people.

You do not have a naturally occurring right to kill people. Where the heck did that notion come from?

At a guess I would say he derives that right from the ability to grab a knife and shank who he pleases without the laws of nature stopping his hand. We know the right to kill exists because people kill other people and you can't stop them...only punish after the fact. We can see this right in nature among animals as well. This is an example of a true 'inalienable' right, it exists regardless of whether you exercise it or not.

Tell the ocean that a man is drowning in that the man has an inalienable right to life. The ocean will show you the error of your definition of 'inalienable rights'. The only inalienable rights we are granted are set forth in physics textbooks, everything else is a man made construct that can and will change at the whim of groups and societies that create and enforce said 'rights'.

[hubcap]

Actually, I was referring to the principles this nation and its government were founded upon.

[jndiii]

Rights are "granted" by NOT being denied.

This is sophistry, which entirely hides the reason they're not being denied.

They are not being denied because they are demanded.

Sorry, I'm not addressing the rest of the post point by point, but your arguments "aren't even wrong." E.g., with respect to the Magna Carta, you give some evidence of historical knowledge, but I find your interpretation to be bizarre in the extreme. There's some hidden assumption in there that I cannot quite glean. I suspect it has to do with your understanding of what a "social contract" is, and that it leans more towards the Rousseau concept of "general will" than the "rule of law" concept.

The Rousseau concept lacks a great deal of the framework needed to guarantee rights, because it regards the contract as a (popular) sovereign authority granting rights (because there is a general will that rules all). Some philosophers might regard "general will" or "popular sovereignty" to be the equivalent of "rule of law", but it is not. Rule of law, properly understood, is not willful or capricious, but a set of rules by which everyone, both individually and collectively, must abide. That is, even "general will" must abide rule of law: the U.S. Constitution, in particular, is not lightly amended.

Note that one of Rousseau's key quotes is that man "must be forced to be free." That puts him in direct contradiction with the founders, and in particular the Declaration of Independence, and the notion of "unalienable rights". It is this very concept, or rather this mislabeling, against which reb and I are arguing. That which is "forced" is not "freedom." It might be good. It might be in most everyone's best interests, but it is not freedom.

This distinction is not an oversight on Rousseau's part. He thought that direct rule by the people as a whole, rather than representative government, is better. The problem that Rousseau did not see in his idea is that the people as a whole, absent a real, distinct, rule of law, can be just as tyrannical and capricious as a monarch. He thought that by virtue of being the genuine "general will", that the general will would effectively serve the role of "rule of law." Personally, I think the flaw in his philosophy is that the concept of "general will" is a bogus rationalization: it tries to treat a large collection of disparate interests as having the same interest, which the ongoing adventure of politics demonstrates is false to even the casual observer.

As long as you blur the concept of social contract with rule of law, I suspect we will not be arguing from a mutual understanding of the facts.

[reb]

At a guess I would say he derives that right from the ability to grab a knife and shank who he pleases without the laws of nature stopping his hand. We know the right to kill exists because people kill other people and you can't stop them...only punish after the fact. We can see this right in nature among animals as well. This is an example of a true 'inalienable' right, it exists regardless of whether you exercise it or not.

Tell the ocean that a man is drowning in that the man has an inalienable right to life. The ocean will show you the error of your definition of 'inalienable rights'. The only inalienable rights we are granted are set forth in physics textbooks, everything else is a man made construct that can and will change at the whim of groups and societies that create and enforce said 'rights'.

Bonzi, i completely accept that one has the inalienable right to be intelligent enough 'not to get in a position in the ocean where one might drown.'. i also completely accept that one has the inalienable right to be stupid enough to 'get in a position in the ocean where one might drown.'. the ocean, as well, has rights...whether the weak swimmer recognizes those rights or not. i would enjoy watching a weak swimmer debate with the ocean that the ocean has no rights other than what is granted by 'a government'. that would be highly entertaining. perhaps some of those who get their rights from 'a government' would like to entertain me?

one certainly has the right to 'not take responsibility for having rights' and to give those over to 'someone else'. it's like watching a baby poop its diapers, though.

[blueback]

This is sophistry, which entirely hides the reason they're not being denied.

Anything looks like sophistry if you quote it out of context.

They are not being denied because they are demanded.

A demand wouldn't mean anything if it was made by a weaker party. Like I said before, and you specifically ignored, rights are only meaningful when an imbalance of power exists. The reason the Unites States responded to the demands of its citizens is that, in the United States, the citizens are more powerful (when they agree on something) than the government is.

with respect to the Magna Carta, you give some evidence of historical knowledge, but I find your interpretation to be bizarre in the extreme. There's some hidden assumption in there that I cannot quite glean. I suspect it has to do with your understanding of what a "social contract" is, and that it leans more towards the Rousseau concept of "general will" than the "rule of law" concept.

I'm not arguing with historical theories. I'm just using a couple philosophical terms.

The bulk of my argument has always been structured in such a way that you don't need to understand any political history at all to understand the argument. I like it better that way. Politics exists within the rules I am describing. So, it makes more sense to understand the rules and then try to understand the politics.

Rule of law, properly understood, is not willful or capricious, but a set of rules by which everyone, both individually and collectively, must abide.

Sure, but who enforces the laws?
When you try to construct a system in which one party is more powerful than another party you quickly end up in an infinite regression of power. You can ensure that someone obeys the laws only by making someone else powerful enough to force them to. The only way to solve this dilemma is to connect one end of the infinite series to the other, so that it loops. The US constitution makes the government more powerful than individual people, but the people as a whole more powerful than the government. So there is a cycle of power that, through dynamic tension, can get things done without ripping itself apart.

As long as you blur the concept of social contract with rule of law, I suspect we will not be arguing from a mutual understanding of the facts.
I don't think the social contract is an antonym of the rule of law. The social contract is the reason the rule of law exist.

The simple fact is that people want to live. They can live better in groups. But, groups will not form if people don't obey rules like not killing each other. So, they have to first agree to all give up certain rights. Then, a sovereign has to be established to enforce the contract. The law is simply what happens when the organization grows too large for verbal agreements and has to start writing things down.

[thod]

Experiments with animals show that they too have concepts of fairness and react badly when they perceive something as unfair. For example one money always gets a reward from the handler for an action but the other does not. We too have developed this sense of fairness and it is hard-wired into our brains. This is the basis for our law, it is not universal, but it is universal to us (sociopaths aside).

The people have the right, by force of arms, to choose whatever law they wish to live by. Should they wish to make wearing green shirts illegal, then they may do so. They can legalise robbery, murder, etc whatever they choose. This is the difference between common and civil law. Common law decides what the law is by looking at past decisions of juries, the peoples will. Civil law makes laws from on high. A tyrant is so because he makes laws that his people do not wish to live by. All our laws should be based on popularity. The oppressed minorities known as bank robbers and rapists should not be allowed to engage in their activities unchallenged.

The problem we have at the moment is laws are being made by the executive for their benefit and the benefit of their sponsors. They are not the laws of the people, they are social engineering. I would go so further and say the senate shall make no law which is not understood by the people. Thus laws which are so complex that judges argue over them should be banned. If the common man cannot know if an action if lawful or not, then it is lawful. The body of law means nothing unless it can be understood by the common man.

[jndiii]

Anything looks like sophistry if you quote it out of context.

It was very much within context. The only way it could have been out of context would be for all your other statements to contradict it. I chose it because it was the core point of your argument.


The bulk of my argument has always been structured in such a way that you don't need to understand any political history at all to understand the argument. I like it better that way. Politics exists within the rules I am describing. So, it makes more sense to understand the rules and then try to understand the politics.

Ah, so we don't need to understand the facts of the topic in order to understand your rules? I hope you realize how much you sabotage your own argument, here: you essentially admit sophistry.

What if your rules actually have nothing to do with how it works at all? That is why I bring up political history. You have to really stretch your rules and explanation in bizarre ways to interpret history as you interpret it: (e.g., interpreting oppressed peoples as "more powerful" and denying "rights" to the government, which is weaker?!) You give no motivation for others to believe your rules work, you only assert that they work.


I don't think the social contract is an antonym of the rule of law. The social contract is the reason the rule of law exist.

That is Rousseau's mistake. The "social contract" is at best a catch-all phrase that gives a name to the process by which people get together and organize. One might even call it "politics". It does not cause rule of law to exist, any more than "economics" creates a stable money supply. I am willing to concede the very limited case that "rule of law" is a very specific kind of social contract, but the whole reason I brought up the distinction is that you were equating "rule of law" and "social contract" with things that are antithetical to the rule of law, in particular the notion that "rights are granted."

Having read your arguments, I must assume that "rights are granted" is a core axiom of your rules. I dispute that core axiom, especially that the notion that "rights are granted" is antithetical to rule of law. The only way to resolve the dispute objectively is by looking at history. Maybe it's a chicken-and-egg argument: does an assertion of rights generate the rule of law, or does the rule of law "grant rights"? I'm arguing that historically, there is always some sort of conflict that asserts rights that are then recognized by rule of law, not the other way around.

[reb]

as much of an aside as anything, see what y'all think about this-in short, the irs can bust you, and use what they grab to fund themselves-think that's not an incentive to bust you for anything they can? scroll to sec. 121. :) (no, i'm reading for my own welfare at the moment, not to add to the thread. just came across this in scanning). take a look at sec. 406, too heehee! little snitches.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

It was very much within context. The only way it could have been out of context would be for all your other statements to contradict it. I chose it because it was the core point of your argument.

You should have just deleted those first two sentences. The last one is the only legitimate argument in the bunch.

So, if you thought it was the "core point" why did you make such an effort to reinterpret it in a way that was easier to refute?

Having read your arguments, I must assume that "rights are granted" is a core axiom of your rules.

Yeah, good job with that. You quoted the "core argument" of everything you read, and it was a whopping seven words long, and you felt like you just had to cut it down to three words. Come on, the average working memory is seven items plus or minus 2, so no one is limited to three items. When something is only seven words long the odds are pretty good that each of those words is important. And, in this case, they were.

The way I phrase it is "rights are that which is not denied you by a more powerful actor."

You keep trying to define rights by what they are, I simply define them by what they aren't. For some reason that positive/negative space shift seems to be throwing you for a loop. That being said, I don't see why I should respond to your rebuttal of an argument I have not made. Try requoting the definition I actually use, which I clearly stated and explained before, and responding to my actual argument.

I'm arguing that historically, there is always some sort of conflict that asserts rights that are then recognized by rule of law, not the other way around.

And we segue nicely into your last complaint, which was actually your middle complaint, but I reorganized them for a more logical flow.

Ah, so we don't need to understand the facts of the topic in order to understand your rules...You have to really stretch your rules and explanation in bizarre ways to interpret history as you interpret it: (e.g., interpreting oppressed peoples as "more powerful" and denying "rights" to the government, which is weaker?!)

History is an interpretation. Very little worth knowing is a pure, unadulterated, uneditorialized fact. As a self-professed student of history I would expect you to be aware of that.

There are a lot of people who swear that the Holocaust never happened, or was greatly exaggerated. There are more who claim it did happen and it wasn't exaggerated. I don't know; I wasn't there. Who am I supposed to believe? The people who say it was really bad were also the winners, and we all know that winners get to tell whatever story they want, and they usually spin it to their advantage. There is very little historical evidence of the Nazi planning and deliberate implementation of the Holocaust. Is that because they took pains to not leave evidence of their plans, or because there never were any plans? The evidence can't say, because it isn't there. What we are left with is a lot of interpretation by a lot of people. The majority opinion tends to win.

That being said, there are rules that history happens within. At the most general everything has to obey the rules of nature, so we can start from there. It doesn't matter how people interpret the rules of nature, they can't change them. We can claim that a dead person was much worse than they actually were and get everyone to believe us, but we can't change nature. You wouldn't argue that we can violate the laws of nature, would you? I hope not. And since you must concede that history has to happen inside of some rules, you must also allow the possibility that there are less obvious rules.

That is where I'm coming from. I'm going from rules to events, rather than from events to rules. I've already generated the rules, partly by thinking about events, so I encourage you to do the same. Don't take my word for it. I'm just trying to help you along by speeding up the process of identifying contradictions in understanding.

That is Rousseau's mistake.

I don't care about Rousseau. All I care about are the ideas so.

The "social contract" is at best a catch-all phrase that gives a name to the process by which people get together and organize. One might even call it "politics".

I think that's a pretty good summary.

It does not cause rule of law to exist, any more than "economics" creates a stable money supply. I am willing to concede the very limited case that "rule of law" is a very specific kind of social contract...

There's no such thing as a "stable money supply" and I defy you to produce evidence of one.

"Rule of law" is more complicated than "law", which I've been talking about. The law is just the code, written in books, that judges interpret so that everyone operates under roughly the same set of rules. "Rule of law" gets into how that system ties into the political and enforcement areas. It is easier to confuse with the social contract because it is from a different system of thought. It lumps together concepts in a different way, so the two ideas overlap.

I'm not a fan of "rule of law" thinking, because I think it suffers from the same sort of flaw that anarchism suffers from; that it assumes the wrong axiom. I much prefer the social contract way of looking at things because it is a better way to lump together the relevant concepts.

[RBM]

as much of an aside as anything, see what y'all think about this-in short, the irs can bust you, and use what they grab to fund themselves-think that's not an incentive to bust you for anything they can? scroll to sec. 121. :) (no, i'm reading for my own welfare at the moment, not to add to the thread. just came across this in scanning). take a look at sec. 406, too heehee! little snitches.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

reb, I'm sure you know, but some other readers may not - that this is merely following the precedent that was so successful in law enforcement circles, related to confiscation of goods and money which was kept by the enforcers.

[Ool]

taking my tax dollars and giving them without my consent to someone else is theft. the country was not set up that way...this social engineering is a modern conceit.

Taking the continent from the natives was theft. Are you willing to give it back, though?

And who do you think would steal from you with less concern for your welfare? A democratic government? Or a thief in a system of anarchy, in which there is no police to protect you at all? Or a mobster in a feudal system, where only the rich get protection through bribery and the poor are on their own?

It’s very easy to be a loudmouth who claims they’re being oppressed and would do so much better without a government levying dues. But I think the worst thing that could happen to them would be their wishes of being free from “theft” coming true. They wouldn’t last a month in the new Darwinist world order, and even those that would would still see their statistical life expectancy and quality of life drop drastically.

Social engineering may be modern, but so is growing really old and having food safety, as well as lots of other unprecedented creature comforts…

[jndiii]

That being said, there are rules that history happens within. At the most general everything has to obey the rules of nature, so we can start from there. It doesn't matter how people interpret the rules of nature, they can't change them. We can claim that a dead person was much worse than they actually were and get everyone to believe us, but we can't change nature. You wouldn't argue that we can violate the laws of nature, would you? I hope not. And since you must concede that history has to happen inside of some rules, you must also allow the possibility that there are less obvious rules.

That is where I'm coming from. I'm going from rules to events, rather than from events to rules. I've already generated the rules, partly by thinking about events, so I encourage you to do the same. Don't take my word for it. I'm just trying to help you along by speeding up the process of identifying contradictions in understanding.

So one can start with Aristotle's rules for the four elements, and then use that to explain physics? If the rules one applies do not have their foundation in events, all you have is a post facto rationalization, not real understanding.


"Rule of law" is more complicated than "law", which I've been talking about. The law is just the code, written in books, that judges interpret so that everyone operates under roughly the same set of rules. "Rule of law" gets into how that system ties into the political and enforcement areas. It is easier to confuse with the social contract because it is from a different system of thought. It lumps together concepts in a different way, so the two ideas overlap.

I'm not a fan of "rule of law" thinking, because I think it suffers from the same sort of flaw that anarchism suffers from; that it assumes the wrong axiom. I much prefer the social contract way of looking at things because it is a better way to lump together the relevant concepts.
OK, then this may be the core of the disagreement. As a practical matter, "rule of law" is a better core axiom for understanding rights and their enforcement in a political context. Specifically, without rule of law, there is only power and its inherent capriciousness.

More to the point, if you reject "rule of law" as a valid way of thinking, then you reject the notion of "rights" as being meaningful, and that which we call a "right" is merely a form of power and best understood as an expression of power.

[blueback]

Social engineering may be modern, but so is growing really old and having food safety, as well as lots of other unprecedented creature comforts…
Well said.
More to the point, if you reject "rule of law" as a valid way of thinking, then you reject the notion of "rights" as being meaningful
Okay.

What is your definition of the word "rights"? I presented mine. Now you have to be specific, too.

[jndiii]

What is your definition of the word "rights"? I presented mine. Now you have to be specific, too.
Fair enough.

What is generally meant by "rights"?

Classic "rights" include things like the right to life, a right to own property, or a right to liberty. These have their roots in philosophy and morality.
Other specific examples, include things such as freedom of speech and religion, a right to fair trial, a right to vote, and so on. These have their roots in specific political and legal traditions.
Other kinds of things have been asserted, such as a right to a minimum wage, a right to health care, and in general, rights to various kinds of property, services and material goods. These are more modern concepts, usually associated with redistributive politics.
Finally, there are the kinds of rights that no one thinks to assert as rights because no one would really seriously consider taking them away: e.g., the right to pick your nose, the right to sneeze or the right to say "supercalifragilisticexpealidocious".

Of these, I'd say that the first two are the best examples of rights. They are entirely moral and/or political in nature. They are the kinds of things that a group of people could get together and agree, yes, everyone should have these. The third is a bit contentious, and while there is an argument to be made that such are legitimate rights, I'd rather not have a tangential argument in that direction, and not include material benefits as a kind of right. The last is there more for completeness, in that there are all kinds of actions and behaviors that are fairly absurd to bring up as "rights," except as humor.

Using the first two items as examples, let us state a working definition of rights:
A right is an assertion of the political inviolability of the citizens of a government in a particular respect. In general, such an assertion arises both from moral grounds (e.g., right to life, liberty) and from traditional legal grounds (right to property, to freely enter into contracts, to due process). A right applies generally to all citizens: citizens might have more or less political power, but all have the same rights regardless of political power.

The grounds from which a right is asserted is important. Political power arises from a general agreement that a particular right is a good idea.

A corollary of the above is that rights cannot be granted, per se: one might enter into a society in which rights already exist, but the rights that exist did not always exist and had to be asserted and recognized.

With this working definition, let us review your definition of rights:
Animals have the right to absolutely everything.
That is because a right is that which is not denied you by a more powerful actor.
You might want to read that again, because that is the definition of the word you are using. It is the only consistent way to interpret the concept. Rights don't mean anything outside of an imbalance of power.

Rights are "granted" by those more powerful.

"Animals have the right to absolutely everything." That doesn't work with my definition. Animals have no political structure within which to have rights. Also, because rights must be asserted, not granted, "animal rights" is just a name for laws to protect animal welfare, not actual rights which give animals political power.

"That is because a right is that which is not denied you by a more powerful actor." This is exactly what I would call "permission," not a right. It covers everything from the "right" to pick your nose and say nonsense words, through whatever actual political actions one is "not denied." It fails my definition of "right" in other ways: something that is "not denied" does not have any sort of inherent inviolability. Something which is merely "not denied" can very easily be denied in short order by the "more powerful actor," as the actor pleases.

I'll grant that your concept fits in with the concept of a social contract in general, but it is critically missing the concept of rule of law, which is something I have deliberately included in my definition of rights: there is a right, it is based on commonly understood moral principles and/or legal traditions, and it cannot be arbitrarily revoked. Part of the reason it cannot be arbitrarily revoked is that the political institutions (the social contract) are created such that revocation is difficult, but the other part, to which reb speaks, is that it cannot be revoked because the people believe in it - that in fact the reason it came to be is because the people believed in it.

"It is the only consistent way to interpret the concept. Rights don't mean anything outside of an imbalance of power." I'll grant that you have logical self consistency, but what you have done is interpret rights as the result of a power struggle (which is true), while leaving out the distinctions that make rights different from mere laws and regulations, which are also outcomes of power struggles. Rights, properly understood, are not merely terms in a social contract, but have a conceptual life of their own outside that contract. They play a significant role in what people understand the social contract to mean, and how the social contract may legitimately be modified. They also, of course, play a significant role in the very creation of the social contract.

[blueback]

What is generally meant by "rights"?
...right to life, a right to own property, or a right to liberty...freedom of speech and religion, a right to fair trial, a right to vote...right to a minimum wage, a right to health care, and in general, rights to various kinds of property, services and material goods...the right to pick your nose, the right to sneeze or the right to say "supercalifragilisticexpealidocious".

Of these, I'd say that the first two are the best examples of rights. They are entirely moral and/or political in nature...The third is a bit contentious...The last is there more for completeness, in that there are all kinds of actions and behaviors that are fairly absurd to bring up as "rights," except as humor.

You're begining your examination of what "rights" means by searching the sentences it is used in for contextual information. That's cool. However, you are incorporating extraneous information. The question isn't which rights do we take seriously, but what are rights. That means we're looking for an objective definition; one that doesn't depend on someone's opinion. Nothing is objectively funny, so if you're worried about that you know right off the bat you're including too many factors in the analysis.

Using the first two items as examples, let us state a working definition of rights:
A right is an assertion of the political inviolability of the citizens of a government in a particular respect. In general, such an assertion arises both from moral grounds (e.g., right to life, liberty) and from traditional legal grounds (right to property, to freely enter into contracts, to due process). A right applies generally to all citizens: citizens might have more or less political power, but all have the same rights regardless of political power.


I'm assuming the first sentence is the actual definition and the rest of the paragraph is supporting details.

So, if I'm reading it correctly, you are saying that a right is created by a citizen when they give their government a list of things they won't tolerate the government telling them not to do. That does follow directly from the data you listed earlier. This would seem to imply that rights rarely mean anything, since there are all sorts of things citizens throughout history have claimed they are going to do, and very few governments have actually let them proceed. It sounds like you are talking about demands, not rights.

Demand: to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right; To claim as just or due; To require as useful, just, proper, or necessary

It seems to me that a right is something people very often refer to in such a way that they consider it beyond question. The rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were ours from the moment of creation. They weren't created when the constitution was written, the constitution merely pointed out what already existed. I think the founders would argue that citizens (all men) have rights whether they demand them or not. That, in fact, they cannot even be given up voluntarily. They just exist; nothing has to be done to create them.

A corollary of the above is that rights cannot be granted, per se: one might enter into a society in which rights already exist, but the rights that exist did not always exist and had to be asserted and recognized.

I can see where you're coming from, and it makes a lot more sense now that you've express your preference for "rule of law" thinking over "social contract" thinking.

However, I still think the idea you are talking about could very easily be labeled "demand", or maybe "claim." Citizens must demand that their government respect certain boundaries, otherwise their government will not. People have to "own" the things they will not give up. They might be overpowered anyway, but if they don't claim what they feel they own it will be taken away for certain.

With this working definition, let us review your definition of rights:
"Animals have the right to absolutely everything." That doesn't work with my definition. Animals have no political structure within which to have rights. Also, because rights must be asserted, not granted, "animal rights" is just a name for laws to protect animal welfare, not actual rights which give animals political power.

I didn't mean "animal rights" like the modern phrase.
Also, social animals DO have a political structure. Wherever animals live in hierarchies of power there are things the more powerful animals will not let the less powerful animals do. Thus, they don't have the right to do them. The less powerful animals frequently abide by these rules, because they get more by being part of the group than they give up by being subservient.

What I meant was that living things in isolation (no other living things around) have unlimited rights in the sense that no other animals are around to disagree forcefully. However, people frequently discuss the idea that the ocean will not respect your "right to life." This is consistent with my definition because the ocean is more powerful than you are. When you are at the mercy of the ocean, just like at the mercy of a gang, you have only the rights that more powerful entity does not deny you. This allows the word to maintain exactly the same definition, completely unaltered, in different conversations. Your definition would have to change, because it doesn't allow people to use the word "rights" outside of a discussion of human political disagreements.

"That is because a right is that which is not denied you by a more powerful actor." This is exactly what I would call "permission," not a right. It covers everything from the "right" to pick your nose and say nonsense words, through whatever actual political actions one is "not denied." It fails my definition of "right" in other ways: something that is "not denied" does not have any sort of inherent inviolability. Something which is merely "not denied" can very easily be denied in short order by the "more powerful actor," as the actor pleases.

I think you are focusing on the wrong part. My definition stipulates that rights always existed. That's the important part. Your definition stipulates that rights might never exist at all. If a person never asserts anything they will do to their government, then they have not created any rights. That seems pretty silly, since even you would claim they have rights whether they claim them or not.

I think the bolded part is most telling. You even agree that my definition is applicable, unadulterated, to the entire discussion. So, why not just use on of the other perfectly good words that your definition already fits under, like "demand" or "claim"?

I'll grant that your concept fits in with the concept of a social contract in general, but it is critically missing the concept of rule of law, which is something I have deliberately included in my definition of rights: there is a right, it is based on commonly understood moral principles and/or legal traditions, and it cannot be arbitrarily revoked.

This is where it is most significant that we're coming at it from different angles.
In my model, the social contract is created when people get together and agree on how to run their mutual business. Nearly everything about it is arbitrary. If it works, which means people can increase their survivability (even if marginally) above working alone, then it is good enough. You are approaching it from the assumption that people MUST work together. I'm approaching it from the assumption that people work together only because they MUST survive, and it's easier in a group. You think the group is paramount, I think the group is important because individual survival is paramount.

If teamwork is based on a more important value, and is not the most important value in and of itself, then it doesn't really matter how it happens as long as it helps out. Rights can be arbitrarily revoked, because there is a lot of leeway in what works. That's why there are plenty of examples of political organizations lasting a really long time, and getting an awful lot done, without respecting many of the rights we consider sacred today.

Part of the reason it cannot be arbitrarily revoked is that the political institutions (the social contract) are created such that revocation is difficult, but the other part, to which reb speaks, is that it cannot be revoked because the people believe in it - that in fact the reason it came to be is because the people believed in it.

Yeah, we have figured out better structures. But, those structures haven't been proven yet. Older structures, like monarchies, existed for an order of magnitude more time than liberal democracies. We don't yet know if liberal democracies are going to work. We think they will, but I'm sure most citizens of monarchies thought their system was the best possible, too. Maybe what we have now is flawed and we just can't see it yet. Maybe people can't be allowed to have all the rights we currently grant them. Maybe it just doesn't matter. Maybe as long as a majority of the population agrees with whatever political system happens to exist, no matter what rights it grants or ignores, it is good enough. Maybe the point is stability, not creation of rights.

"It is the only consistent way to interpret the concept. Rights don't mean anything outside of an imbalance of power." I'll grant that you have logical self consistency, but what you have done is interpret rights as the result of a power struggle (which is true), while leaving out the distinctions that make rights different from mere laws and regulations, which are also outcomes of power struggles.

My definition of rights is nothing like the definition for law or regulation.

Rights, properly understood, are not merely terms in a social contract, but have a conceptual life of their own outside that contract. They play a significant role in what people understand the social contract to mean, and how the social contract may legitimately be modified. They also, of course, play a significant role in the very creation of the social contract.

I think you're trying to make the word do both too much and too little at the same time. There are plenty of other words.

[jndiii]

Then what I'm seeing here is that you have kind of a "functional" definition of rights. That is, it's like a computer application: as a user you have the right to do whatever the application allows you to do. If your rights are upgraded or revoked, that limits what you can do. In terms of asking the question, "What is one allowed to do?" your definition of rights is the answer.

The concept of rights in politics, however, is in a weightier context, wherein your listeners are going to add meanings to the word "rights" above and beyond the question of whether one is allowed to do something or not. There is a philosophical weight - people call them rights because, well, it is "right" that they should exist. There is a legal weight, where a right isn't merely something that you are allowed to do in the present moment, but you can count on the fact that you'll have that right indefinitely. There is a political weight: people will laugh if you insist upon your right to sneeze, but will start dividing into factions if you mention a right to health care.

Your definition of rights will confound those with whom you discuss political rights. Sometimes you will say something that sounds entirely correct in the political/moral context, e.g., "The rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were ours from the moment of creation. They weren't created when the constitution was written, the constitution merely pointed out what already existed." However, you will also make statements that are entirely contrary to the political/moral understanding, e.g., "Rights are "granted" by those more powerful." Such a statement makes sense if the concept of a right is, "What am I allowed to do?" but no sense in the political context of, "What should I legitimately always be allowed to do, no matter what?"

I make no effort to dissuade you of the use of your definition of "rights" for personal understanding, but I suggest you keep in mind how loaded the word is for general use. In my mind, what you call rights, I call "permissions", and I am fairly sure that if I replaced the word "right" with "permission" in all your statements about rights, we would encounter fairly little disagreement between ourselves or among any other listeners. Once you start saying "rights", the emotional/political/moral weights come in: saying that I have "permission" to live is far different from saying that I have a "right" to live. If you don't see how those two statements, which mean the same thing to you, might mean two very different things to someone else, that would be a useful topic for you to explore.

Anyway, I'll be happy to discuss our different approaches further, should you wish to, but this feels like the end of the topic, to me.

[Hamburglar]

Permissions? If I want to go and cut down a tree- I have that right regardless of any legal barriers unless someone can physically deny me that right. Right?

[jndiii]

Permissions? If I want to go and cut down a tree- I have that right regardless of any legal barriers unless someone can physically deny me that right. Right?

If you can find a lawyer capable of convincing a judge of that, please refer me.

Lawyer: Your honor, my client had the right to cut down his neighbor's tree because there was no one there to physically stop him.
Judge: Very eloquent reasoning. Case dismissed.

[Tristan]

Lawyer: Your honor, my client had the right to cut down his neighbor's tree because there was no one there to physically stop him.
Judge: Very eloquent reasoning. Case dismissed.

Nice example. And clearly, if that applied to rape, it would cut way back on red tape.

[Hamburglar]

If you can find a lawyer capable of convincing a judge of that, please refer me.
First of all you are assuming I got caught.
Second of all, laws constrain rights but do not effectively remove them. I was saying I have the right to do that, and could convince the judge if I passed a law which states that it is legal to cut down a neighbors tree (thereby legally protecting my right to cut his tree). With regard to rape, there may be a thousand laws constraining the right to rape someone, but there is nothing stopping them from the exercise thereof (besides the transitory threat of arrest). Rights, liberties, freedoms, and laws are arbitrary unless everyone agrees upon them. The slaves got the "right"-"permission" to be free and vote, but somehow or another the propertied convinced the system to keep them from voting anyhow.

[jndiii]

First of all you are assuming I got caught.
Second of all, laws constrain rights but do not effectively remove them. I was saying I have the right to do that, and could convince the judge if I passed a law which states that it is legal to cut down a neighbors tree (thereby legally protecting my right to cut his tree). With regard to rape, there may be a thousand laws constraining the right to rape someone, but there is nothing stopping them from the exercise thereof (besides the transitory threat of arrest). Rights, liberties, freedoms, and laws are arbitrary unless everyone agrees upon them. The slaves got the "right"-"permission" to be free and vote, but somehow or another the propertied convinced the system to keep them from voting anyhow.

Please forgive me, but I do not see exactly what you are arguing, here. Could you please clarify?

Note that I was pointing out, by example, that your use of the word "right" is very different from the normal use. Are you arguing that the political/legal context of the word is unjustified, and that the proper use is that you have the "right" to do anything you want unless someone stops you? You are welcome to that definition, but you have difficult task ahead to convince people to use your definition, in particular the lawyers and judges whose business it is to understand rights. Frankly, your definition - if I'm reading you correctly - seems rather anarchist (law of the jungle).

[hubcap]

With regard to rape, there may be a thousand laws constraining the right to rape someone, but there is nothing stopping them from the exercise thereof (besides the transitory threat of arrest).

On this point you couldn't be more wrong.

A female with a .45 is more than capable of stopping you from the exercise thereof.

The right of self defense is also a "right".

[reb]

there is, at most, maybe 6 pounds of pressure between 'the right to rape' and 'finding out if there is really an afterlife'. that's not much margin for error-less than a good sized melon. in carry law states, most violent crimes have gone down. i guess 'peoples' rights have been trampled on' in those states lol! aint it a shame?

it has been said, 'god made all men; samuel colt made all men equal'.

now, if there was only 'equality to tax', i would want some of my money back from washington, like i got some back from the county 'at law' this year. strangely, i found that they were inequitably taxing me; how could that be?

[blueback]

...your use of the word "right" is very different from the normal use.

Yeah. There are some words that have gained way too much "bloat" in their definitions. The connotation encourages people to try to shoe-horn something unrelated and inappropriate into the positive (or negative) association. "Athiest" is another good example of this.

What I'm trying to do is develop a (nearly) perfect model of the concepts involved. To do that I need mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (MUCE) definitions. Once that model exists it can easily be translated into whatever language the audience is familiar with. Well, "easily" might be reaching a bit, but the process will at least be straight forward.

I don't care how the concepts are labeled, I only care about the concepts themselves. It's like how I don't care about the handles on a box, or even really about the box itself, but about what is inside the box. That is why I focused on the way your concept was different from mine. It wasn't that the words we were using were incompatible, it was that the concepts weren't mutually exclusive. That's okay. I still think my model is better than yours. And, of course, I totally understand that the majority of the population are limited in their ability to understand something by the connotation they attach to things. In person I'm very good at manipulating connotations, but I'm here to be rigorously technical, because no one puts up with that in real life.

I think the misunderstanding be be cleared up by a more correct interpretation of the concepts involved. My definition of rights stands, and is interpreted to mean that people simply disagree on what should be denied. The key word being "should." That is a debate that can and must continue indefinitely, but it is important to talk about it as it really is. There are no objective standards of correct laws. So, we shouldn't talk about the rules we want to impose on each other like they were naturally occuring facts. They are opinions; at worst malicious, at best incompetent.

Frankly, your definition - if I'm reading you correctly - seems rather anarchist (law of the jungle).

Nah. . .anarchism is totally different from the jungle.

The jungle is a state in which everyone is motivated by short-term self-interest. Anarchism is a state in which everyone is motivated by long-term self-interest. See, in the long term, it is in everyone's best self-interest to be cooperative. The reason we can't seem to achieve anything close to the anarchism ideal is that people continue to insist on ignoring the long-term effects of their actions. Thus, they actually undermine their self-interest. Until people are capable of self control we will need some form of government to provide external control.

That being said, it is silly to interpret "rights are those things not denied you by a more powerful actor" to mean "denied RIGHT NOW." The sentence doesn't mention a time constraint. If the "more powerful actor" promises that you will be punished when they get around to it, you are still denied. If the "more powerful actor" promises that you will be punished if it can be proven that you did what was denied, then you are still denied. When something is denied, by an actor capable of enforcing the denial, it is no longer a right. A right is that which is NOT denied, and how or when something is denied is erroneous.