[Tristan]

I don't know about it being doomed to fail, but certainly, all reforms (and attempted ones like in 2005) to SS have been damage-control measures to a program that is no longer recognizable from its infancy. At that time, the average retirement age was way after the life expectancy age. Retirement as we know it today was unheard of, and SS aimed to provide a secure income stream to the indigent— that is, to people who had broken down too far to provide for themselves and had no supportive kin.

[YesPlease]

As a mid-20s government employee, I will never understand why anyone would want the government to take responsibility for some measure of their lives they could easily control themselves-- whether it be planning for retirement, getting medical care, or helping out a neighbor or family member in a pinch.

It really boggles my mind.

[Holiman]

Whom would you suggest deal with the mentally or physically handicapped then, those whom might not have a family or anyone willing to provide for their wellbeing?

Now their is a entire list of problems with SS and people who are abusing the system. There are also many thousands of people whom would simply starve, be homeless and not have anyone with whom they could depend.

Suggestions ???

I have also not even gotten into the problem with companies that terminate employees so as not to provide pensions or those whom empty pensions and leave employees with nothing after decades of loyal service.

[Yhor]

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Whom would you suggest deal with the mentally or physically handicapped then, those whom might not have a family or anyone willing to provide for their wellbeing? Now their is a entire list of problems with SS and people who are abusing the system. There are also many thousands of people whom would simply starve, be homeless and not have anyone with whom they could depend.

Where they get help from currently... Hint: SSI =/= SS. And there are certainly abuses to SSI as well that need to be addressed.

Could you provide a little more clarity if this isn't what you meant? It appears you thought they were the same.

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Whom would you suggest deal with the mentally or physically handicapped then, those whom might not have a family or anyone willing to provide for their wellbeing? Now their is a entire list of problems with SS and people who are abusing the system. There are also many thousands of people whom would simply starve, be homeless and not have anyone with whom they could depend. Suggestions ???

Certainly there are those who can not take care of themselves due to mental or physical disability, or have family to depend on, on a long-term basis. For those who have no other option, I don't think anyone opposes some level of support. This, however, is very different than those who will not take care of themselves.

	I have also not even gotten into the problem with companies that terminate employees so as not to provide pensions or those whom empty pensions and leave employees with nothing after decades of loyal service.

Planning for retirement is the responsibility of all individuals, not the government and not the company you work for. If contractual comitments were made to employees, then those commitments should be fulfilled, but this does not relieve the individual of responsibility to plan for and support their retirement, including taking into account that pensions and other programs may not be available for them.

[Arkeph]

	Originally Posted by Yhor To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm describing what I saw in Oklahoma City at the capitol on April 15th. Did you happen to catch the link I posted above?

I've read about the "tea party crashers" at TPM and other sites, but they don't seem interested, from what I've read, in disrupting discussions about government's proper role in promoting the general welfare of the country. Insofar as their attempts to de-legitimize the teaparty movement succeed, it could only be because the absurdities (birther-ism, conspiracy theories, etc) promoted by a (substantial) minority of the movement aren't challenged by the movement's leaders.

Either those absurdities (along with a thick layering of Republican involvement) can be reconciled with the Tea Party movement or they can't. The latter seems more likely to me.

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Whom would you suggest deal with the mentally or physically handicapped then, those whom might not have a family or anyone willing to provide for their wellbeing?

I would suggest not forcing people to aid them. You would be surprised with the outcome. Why do you think the government has taken over the role of charity? It's because there are so many voters who want to help others.

[Yhor]

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would suggest not forcing people to aid them. You would be surprised with the outcome. Why do you think the government has taken over the role of charity? It's because there are so many voters who want to help others.

I've made this argument before, too, and people seem to ignore it.

I'm far more likely to help people when it isn't forced on me to do so... and I'm poor. I donate to charity when I know it'll be used appropriately, despite how small my income is.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by lurk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Cite?

[HIDE="The following is an excerpt of a much broader explanation."]

Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy. No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015. Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.

Associated Press reported on April 6, 2005: "PARKERSBURG, West Virginia. (AP) -- President Bush on Tuesday used a 4-drawer filing cabinet stuffed with paper representing government IOUs the president said symbolized the Social Security trust fund's bleak outlook for meeting Americans' future retirement needs. ... "'A lot of people in America think there is a trust -- that we take your money in payroll taxes and then we hold it for you and then when you retire, we give it back to you,' Bush said in a speech at the University of West Virginia at Parkersburg. "'But that's not the way it works,' Bush said. 'There is no trust "fund" -- just IOUs that I saw firsthand,' Bush said... "[Susan] Chapman [of the Office of Public Debt] opened the second drawer and pulled out a white notebook filled with pseudo Treasury securities -- pieces of paper that offer physical evidence of $1.7 trillion in treasury bonds that make up the trust fund."

[/HIDE]

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

[Yhor]

I've come across a few things from this post that has me questioning... well, everything.

I find commonality with the Tea Party, because they want what's broken to be fixed, at least that's what I get from those I spoke with and read about 'objectively'.

I can also find commonality with leftists who want to help those in need. I'm just not fond of the coercive nature of government imposing on us for charity... that makes it uncharitable. I want a choice to put my money where I think it's needed most, and possibly my services if that's needed more. Local = better, imo, especially where social programs are concerned... the feds can't see past the beltway until a major crisis erupts.

Both parties have their hand out looking for money that will help their cause, and their cause makes sure they have funds to get them elected or reelected. It seems once they get to Washington, party lines are made more distinct and shit relies on interaction to get anything responsible to be the outcome.

I'm about to become, as a direct result of party line politics, a full fledged 'vote for anyone but' independent. If there is a choice other than Dem or Rep on the ticket, they'll get my vote regardless, the sole purpose being to send a message.

I may change my mind, again, but the party line politics in Washington, and with 'regular voters' in general, have me turning it all over in my head, wanting representatives that want to serve instead of be served.

Sorry for an opinionated rant, no citations available on my opinions.

[meanlittlechimp]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, you certinly get an A+ from keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow. I've been to two tea parties and I can tell you there is no conspiracy against any group or race. In fact I've seen a mix of groups and races there.

What percentage of tea party members are white? I would guess 98%.

What is your guess?

Since I haven't been to one of these gatherings, I'm more likely to be wrong obviously.

[lurk]

	Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can find the entire excerpt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You'll get no argument from me that everyone who paid FICA in the past 50 years has been fucked. You'll also get no argument from me that Reagan's contribution to the national debt is nontrivial. I don't see how that translates to "Social Security was a self-sustaining system until Regan began borrowing from it".

[jesse]

	Originally Posted by YesPlease To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As a mid-20s government employee, I will never understand why anyone would want the government to take responsibility for some measure of their lives they could easily control themselves-- whether it be planning for retirement, getting medical care, or helping out a neighbor or family member in a pinch. It really boggles my mind.

At least there is one person who finds government-provided schemes completely strange instead of embracing them blindly because the majority of others in the same position likewise do. Central planning and control may sound like a grand idea, though it is destined to fail and be terribly inefficient in practice.

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would suggest not forcing people to aid them. You would be surprised with the outcome. Why do you think the government has taken over the role of charity? It's because there are so many voters who want to help others.

Again this is where the starry eyed idealism has crept in and "forced" government to become a charity. It is not government role to do charitable work because it has to inevitably "steal" funds from the populace in order to achieve this goal. If you can and want to help someone out, go right on ahead. The kicker is that this must happen on your terms instead of being told or outright forced by others to participate even indirectly in such schemes.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by lurk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"Social Security was a self-sustaining system until Regan began borrowing from it".

Sorry, mis spoke there. It was pay-as-you-go, rather than a boon-doggle. You got what you put into it. My apologies, didn't mean to give the impression I thought it paid for itself :P

	Originally Posted by jesse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Central planning and control may sound like a grand idea, though it is destined to fail and be terribly inefficient in practice.

Banding together to get the benefit of purchasing power is a good idea... The only real issue is that there's a very small number at the top who are making 'nice' with industry, and frittering away that power for a yacht and a house in the Hamptons... which they don't share with the rest of us.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by jesse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	At least there is one person who finds government-provided schemes completely strange instead of embracing them blindly because the majority of others in the same position likewise do. Central planning and control may sound like a grand idea, though it is destined to fail and be terribly inefficient in practice.

Yes, there is exactly one person who agrees with this viewpoint on this forum. And central planning is destined to fail, even though for some reason humans seem to have moved toward it instead of living in small, Mad-Max style tribes or loose confederations of semi-autonomous states. People who live in centrally planned societies are all just delusional or blind or both, simply embracing full government control, while you alone can see the matrix.

Oh, and "leftists" are simply interested in giving government handouts because of their soft hearts, or are socialists, rather than moderate utilitarians who believe in the ability of people collectively to solve some problems, which is basically what government is. And now I'm taking off my tinfoil hat.

The title of this thread and their idea is the "Contract From America", that should be telling enough. If you believe in the concept of "I got mine, fuck you," then, great. But if you have thought for one moment this world might be about something a little bit bigger than yourselves, and that we actually function better as a society when for example, old people aren't chronically destitute, well then, welcome to the 1900s.

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

Again this is where the starry eyed idealism has crept in and "forced" government to become a charity. It is not government role to do charitable work because it has to inevitably "steal" funds from the populace in order to achieve this goal. If you can and want to help someone out, go right on ahead. The kicker is that this must happen on your terms instead of being told or outright forced by others to participate even indirectly in such schemes.

You mean starry-eyed schemes like taxation? I know, I know that's one of those things the dreaded government forces on all of us. Back to the nasty, brutish and short we should go, post-haste.

[thod]

The rich right winger says "let the poor starve, I am not responsible for their welfare". Yet he also holds a hypocritical position because he also believes the poor should not steal from him. He professes his lack of concern for their welfare yet expects them to care about his. If he is has no obligation to them, then they can have none to him. They are justified in stealing from him, they are reflecting his own position in having no concern for the loss the theft causes him.

Government has never been about welfare. Government is about control, the ability to enforce ones will and bring about order in line with that will. This mean men with guns, soldiers and policemen. A situation where the policemen are shooting it out with the poor is a situation out of control. Thus such a government is weak, it only governs the rich men. We see such governments in the third world where they only control the capital city. This is the real reason for welfare, bread and circuses, it keeps the people happy and ensures government control. The rich may be unhappy about it, but they are still rich and so not that unhappy, certainly not desperate enough to risk a gun fight.

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah, I'm not sure where I picked it up either. But it worked, so I kept it.

It only works in a machiavellian sense.

	You are talking about the legal definition. That must be where the disconnect is being created. However, the philosophy is more important than the legalise, because the philosophy comes before the legalise. The law is based on philosophy. The philosophical definition is more fundamental than the legal definition.

Philosophically there is little difference. Rights exist by agreement.

	You could try to claim that the rights were always there, and you would be half-way correct. The concept of the rights was always there, but it takes power to manifest the concept. Any time someone claims to have the right to do something they must back up that claim with enough power to enforce it. A powerless person has no rights unless they are granted or protected by someone powerful.

No, a powerless person has the previously agreed upon rights, what they may lack is the force to manifest the rights. The fact that the government could lock me up indefinitely without charging me with a crime violates my rights, but that doesn't imply the right doesn't exist. It is simply an illegitimate usurpation of my rights.

	Nope. My position is that the government grants rights to people (not "the" people) and that THE people grant reciprocal rights to the government. The government is more powerful than a person, but the people are more powerful than the government, so the government does what it thinks is best until enough persons disagree to collectively overpower it.

You are confusing power with politics. The government grants nothing as it has nothing to grant.

My definition specifically addressed the idea that rights don't exist if there are no people to have/grant them. That doesn't render it broken because it predicts that. The problem with your claim is that there is no such thing as a contract without a government. Your definition is based on a legal framework, which only exists under the umbrella of protection a government provides. So, there is no such thing as a contract without a government, and your example destroys itself.

Two or more parties can willingly enter into an agreement without the existence of government. The only difference is in how any disputes are subsequently settled. If you and I are both stranded on an island, we can agree to terms as to how we will distribute the resources. If we have a dispute it can be settled by negotiation or by force. The fact that "rights" come into question in this dispute doesn't mean they don't exist. If you pilfer coconuts from "my" grove that doesn't mean I didn't have a "right" to my coconuts, it simply means that you violated my rights.

No they don't. The founding documents even undermine that attempt at a point. The term "inalienable rights" referred to the idea that people were born with rights that remain with them even if they are isolated in a state of nature and resist any attempt to voluntarily give them up. So, I disagree with the technical concept of inalienable rights, but both my theory and the founding father's theory disagrees with yours.

The philosophical construct used by the Founders is what our form of government is based on, and the only one I am referring to in our discussion of whether government grants rights or not.

If we want to discuss whether government in general grants rights or not, that is an entirely different matter.

	Well, not literally. But the government is made up of people who have their own minds and wills. In a very real sense individuals can determine the focus and course of governments. Also, my model in no way depends on the absurd idea that "the government" is an actual thing.

Yet when you refer to "the government" it is implied that the government has a "will" of its own, when in reality it is simply a government official that is choosing to set a course in a certain direction.

If the government chose to ignore the "rights" of an individual that person would have little power to do anything. Let's go back to my example of being imprisoned indefinitely without being charged for a crime. What could I do if I were in prison. Could I weild enough power to overthrow the authorities in order to free myself? Hardly. However, I could hire an attorney to approach the court on my behalf. The court would then rule in my favor and order me to be released or to be charged. So, the "government" recognizes that I have rights under the construct of the Constitution.

	Then what about all the people who never signed a contract with the government? What about all the people who specifically disagree with many of the things the government does? Doesn't that mean that no rights exist since the two parties don't mutually agree?

Disagreement regarding the actions of a government entity must be resolved at the court or at the ballotbox. The courts are ultimately responsible for deciding what rights exist under the construct of the Constitution. If the court rules against the government entity then the actions being taken by that entity must cease.

	True. I wasn't aware that your position was the American government was assuming more power than granted it in the constitution without the consent of the people. Examples please.

Any number of government actions are ruled un-constitutional on a regular basis. One of the most prominent cases which was recently in the news was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Congress had passed legislation that prohibited certain political spending. The Supreme Court ruled that the legislation had infringed on the right to free speech that is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.

Any time the "government" exceeds its Constitutionally granted authority, or infringes on the rights of anyone it is guilty of assuming more power than it is granted.

Not if "adhering" to it to your satisfaction would be other than in the best interests of the people. Personally, I like the idea of the government continuing to function. I don't like the idea of half the government payroll being laid off because you don't think their jobs are legitimate. Maybe a gradual drawdown over a long period of time. But I think the government is doing a pretty good job all things considered.

I agree that a functional government is in our best interests. However, the government should operate within the scope of Constitution. If the Supreme Court were to rule tomorrow that the a government entity was un-constitutional then that entity should cease operations until such time as the people decide to provide the government the authority to fulfill that operation.

[thod]

whatever happened to:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The problem with those that quote the primacy of the constitution is that they are often doing so in order to promote a minority position. Yet the government, the supreme court, and the constitution can all be repealed. The founding fathers were very much in favour of the people choosing whatever form of government they wished. If they believed that a communist state would serve them, they have the right to form a communist government. Those few who opposed communism, seeking their own form of organisation, would be akin to King George asserting his right to rule.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It only works in a machiavellian sense.

Machiavelli had many good points.

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Philosophically there is little difference. Rights exist by agreement.

Who's agreement?

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are confusing power with politics.

Wait, really? You think power and politics can be considered separately? Like, totally independent of each other?

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Two or more parties can willingly enter into an agreement without the existence of government.

Well, maybe two people. I'll give you that one because you're wrong in principle, but right in a pragmatic sense.

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

The only difference is in how any disputes are subsequently settled. If you and I are both stranded on an island, we can agree to terms as to how we will distribute the resources. If we have a dispute it can be settled by negotiation or by force. The fact that "rights" come into question in this dispute doesn't mean they don't exist. If you pilfer coconuts from "my" grove that doesn't mean I didn't have a "right" to my coconuts, it simply means that you violated my rights.

Lets say I do pilfer coconusts from the grove you claim to be yours. What are you going to do about it? What right do you have to do anything about it? According to your model the both of us have to agree on a right before it exists. So, if I don't think you have a right to stop me from taking your coconuts from your grove, you don't have any right to stop me. I would have to agree with you for you to have a right.

On the other hand, that example doesn't break my model of rights. In the case of the pilfered coconuts one of us is going to be stronger, if only marginally, so that person will dictate terms to the other one. If you're McLovin, and I'm Mike Tyson, I am going to tell you exactly what you do and do not have the right to do. If you make a spear, and become stronger than me, then you will get to tell me what rights I have. The only way for the weaker party to contest this state of affairs is to appeal to an even greater source of power. For example, McLovin could say that God granted him rights to that grove of coconuts.

Do you see how rights work yet?

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yet when you refer to "the government" it is implied that the government has a "will" of its own, when in reality it is simply a government official that is choosing to set a course in a certain direction.

Yeah. . .I thought that when I explained the misunderstanding you would get it. Instead you seem to want to cling to the misunderstanding and pretend I never explained it.

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

If the government chose to ignore the "rights" of an individual that person would have little power to do anything. Let's go back to my example of being imprisoned indefinitely without being charged for a crime. What could I do if I were in prison. Could I weild enough power to overthrow the authorities in order to free myself? Hardly. However, I could hire an attorney to approach the court on my behalf. The court would then rule in my favor and order me to be released or to be charged. So, the "government" recognizes that I have rights under the construct of the Constitution.

You are dancing around admitting that rights only exist when someone can enforce them. You're not there yet, but you're getting there. The key is that you have to track back even further, before the constitution. Where does the power to enforce the constitution come from? It comes from the power the people have to revolt. That is the ultimate trump card that citizens can always pull. No government can withstand a revolution of its entire citizenry. Your being denied your rights can be contested (somewhat indirectly) by "the people" denying the government the right to treat its citizens in certain ways. As long as the government does what the people want, it won't be overthrown. Or, to head of that old misinterpretation, the people in charge of it won't be overthrown.

It is that power that creates rights in the first place. Then, because the people create the government, it can dictate rights to individuals in specific circumstances. For example, the government can tell a person that they don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. That's not infringing on your right to free speech, because your right to free speech is always up for debate given the context.

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Disagreement regarding the actions of a government entity must be resolved at the court or at the ballotbox.

You left out "at the point of a gun." It is the physical ability of the people to revolt that keeps the government in check.

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The courts are ultimately responsible for deciding what rights exist under the construct of the Constitution. If the court rules against the government entity then the actions being taken by that entity must cease.

Or the government could use its power to appoint a judge that will rule in their favor. See how power and politics are inseperable?

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

Any number of government actions are ruled un-constitutional on a regular basis. One of the most prominent cases which was recently in the news was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Congress had passed legislation that prohibited certain political spending. The Supreme Court ruled that the legislation had infringed on the right to free speech that is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.

This is merely an example of how rights are determined by someone powerful dictating terms to someone powerless (relatively speaking of course). The courts have the right to constrain the other two branches. "The right" simply means they have a source of power backing them up. Specifically, the people via the constitution.

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Any time the "government" exceeds its Constitutionally granted authority, or infringes on the rights of anyone it is guilty of assuming more power than it is granted.

Rights aren't about what is granted, but about what is denied.

That's an important point to grasp. Rights are negative space, not positive space.

If no one stops you from doing something, you might as wel have the right to do that thing. It's moot. You only LOSE the right to do something when someone more powerful tells you that you aren't allowed to do it and has the power to back that declaration up. when we speak of "granting" rights we mean that something will not be denied. But, to tell someone that they cannot deny something is to deny them the right to deny, so where does the power to do that come from? Ultimately it comes down to who would win in a fight. Since the people would win in a fight against the government, they get to dictate rights.

The interesting thing is how hard it is to generate enough agreement to turn "the individuals" into "the people." The power of the group only exists if everyone is moving in the same direction.

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I agree that a functional government is in our best interests. However, the government should operate within the scope of Constitution.

You can't say both of those things at the same time. Either "our best interests" are most important or "the constitution" is most important. One of them has to trump the other. Personally, I think the constitution is important BECAUSE it supports our best interests, but only because. Your interpretation of it seems to create a situation conter to our best interests. So, I support the constitution, I just don't support your interpretation of how it should manifest.

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Those few who opposed communism, seeking their own form of organisation, would be akin to King George asserting his right to rule.

But those two positions come from totally different philosophical systems. King George was operating under a system that assumed God delegated authority to kings who delegated it to everyone else. They assumed kings had an inherent right to rule. The constitution operates under a system that assumes God delegated authority equally to every single person such that none was inherently more deserving of rule than any other.

So, when King George asserted his right to dictate terms to the majority of the population he was correct, but when the minority of a democracy asserts its rights to dictate terms to the majority of the population it is incorrect. King George didn't have to compromise. Minorities do. According to their own philosophical systems.

[YesPlease]

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

Yes, there is exactly one person who agrees with this viewpoint on this forum. And central planning is destined to fail, even though for some reason humans seem to have moved toward it instead of living in small, Mad-Max style tribes or loose confederations of semi-autonomous states. People who live in centrally planned societies are all just delusional or blind or both, simply embracing full government control, while you alone can see the matrix.

My issue with many of the programs the government has come up with to "help people" is that they are done at the federal level, and are generally forced on 49% of the population. Why not allow the states to decide how best to tackle issues like unemployment, health-care, abortion, etc. instead of making lofty proclamations on high with promises to fix everyone's problems with just one more 3000 page piece of federal legislation (that they get handed by lobbyist, and don't bother to read)? Not only does that allow larger portions of the overall population to be happier with the end result (regardless of whether I agree with how New Hampshire or Montana go about their business), it allows competition and forces accountability to politicians. You can be damn sure if New Hampshire comes up with some great idea in regards to health care, and my state falls behind, questions are going to be raised. 50 different attempts to fix a problem have a much better chance of finding a solution than just one passed down from D.C.

The irony, to me, is that Europe serves as the best example of this. While many point to European nations to justify changes to our policies at the national level, those nations have more in common with our states in size, population, and diversity than the U.S. as a whole.

[Warrior]

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

My issue with many of the programs the government has come up with to "help people" is that they are done at the federal level, and are generally forced on 49% of the population. Why not allow the states to decide how best to tackle issues like unemployment, health-care, abortion, etc. instead of making lofty proclamations on high with promises to fix everyone's problems with just one more 3000 page piece of federal legislation (that they get handed by lobbyist, and don't bother to read)? Not only does that allow larger portions of the overall population to be happier with the end result (regardless of whether I agree with how New Hampshire or Montana go about their business), it allows competition and forces accountability to politicians. You can be damn sure if New Hampshire comes up with some great idea in regards to health care, and my state falls behind, questions are going to be raised. 50 different attempts to fix a problem have a much better chance of finding a solution than just one passed down from D.C. The irony, to me, is that Europe serves as the best example of this. While many point to European nations to justify changes to our policies at the national level, those nations have more in common with our states in size, population, and diversity than the U.S. as a whole.

I agree and I would add that the lower level of government that administers these types of programs, the better opportunity to get aid where it really needs to go. A one-size-fits-all plan fails nearly everyone, but states (and even lower levels of local government) have much better visibility to the needs of their communities and a better understanding of what local (non-government) resources are available. They can keep programs limited in scope and better prepare people to get off government programs and make positive contributions to the community because they have the best understanding of the needs of their citizens. In my limited time in city government, local community programs done in conjuction with local citizens were always more effective (cost less, higher success in getting people back on their feet) than federal programs.

[LaoTzu]

There ya go Warrior. Now you and Noam Chomsky have something in common
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


But if you bring up 'States Rights' that puts people on guard. I think it could use a
re-naming.

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are dancing around admitting that rights only exist when someone can enforce them.

Fundamentally our disagreement is centered on whether rights exist apart from the use of force.

I believe rights exist apart from the use of force. The fact that rights can be denied by force doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. If the government uses force to deny a right to someone that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. It does mean the government has illegitimately denied a right that was due. You simply assert that the right doesn't exist.

I believe that to be the only substantive difference in our points of view.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Basically. What argument would you advance to support the idea that you do have the right to breath? In your reply, please be sure to separate the concept of "should have" from "actually does have."

One actually does have the right to life, and by extension the right to breathe. In this moment, you are denying my right to breathe, and thus denying my right to life.

You see, my rights exists regardless of whether you are respecting them.

QED

[Ray9]

I don't believe rights exist outside the human mind. The existence of a right can be found nowhere in nature that I know of. A lion has no right to its prey and the prey has no right to be allowed to escape. Planets have no right to gravity and stars have no right to shine. The notion of a right comes from human history and is most likely related to self-preservation. The word "right" is an extension of the concept of "good" or doing good which benefits the tribe by keeping the peace. The modern idea of what a "right" is is something that "ought" to be for the common good. Rights are in fact an invention of man and never existed before man.