Bah. I’ve somehow gotten through 55 years without ever needing a gun for anything. I’ll see your :rolleyes: and raise you two :rolleyes::rolleyes:
But it is right in our Constitution: the federal government has the power to levy taxes. That is the fundamental covenant that binds us as a nation together. Your property rights are not absolute, not in the country secured by the farmers at Lexington and Concord, at least. If you want Libertopia, I suggest you look elsewhere, because we long ago rejected the absolute sovereignty of the property owner. It is a fantasy, with no basis in law or custom. You get to to keep most of what you earn. Demanding to keep it all is just selfish and evil.
We are a very charitable nation. Charities and churches used to do the job the federal government is currently doing.
Furthermore, I am *not *against socialized medicine per say. I am against federal socialized medicine. I believe states should be allowed to set up whatever programs they want in terms of healthcare. That way, *you *will be free to move to a state with cradle-to-grave socialism, and I will be free to move to a state that prohibits it. Isn’t choice a wonderful thing?
That’s a funny thing about socialists… they are the most anti-choice people I’ve ever come across.
Very true. But the federal government can’t do anything it wants. We have a limited government. Do you know what that means?
Okay, here’s a reason I’ve been asking so many questions: poor people, the ones who would be most affected by your political beliefs, have the ability to do this too. I have not yet seen a convincing argument why they, and their wealthier and more powerful advocates, should lift a finger to help you realize your vision, nor a reason why they shouldn’t raise an armed revolution against you should you succeed.
If you want to see your visions become reality, I think you’ll have to show them why your way is better than theirs, or even the current state of affairs. Again, I have personally not seen someone of your political bent do so in a way that convinced me.
Hmm. Better dig out that copy of the Constitution. Let’s see now…
General welfare, eh? I wonder what that could mean.
Don’t forget:
Rustlers, cutthroats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperadoes, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, half-wits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggers, bushwhackers, hornswagglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass kickers, shit kickers and Methodists.
Funny thing that even one of the most conservative states (Arizona) has a health care plan for the poor. Private insurers still live with it.
I have plenty of friends who are poor and uneducated. They are rabidly pro-capitalist and anti-socialist.
As for convincing people, the only thing I can say is that our country was founded on the notion of individual freedom, and it is the primary reason for our prosperity and success. Man should be free; it is our nature. Slavery is evil. Slavery comes in many forms, and socialism is one of them.
That’s right, we don’t allow property owners to choose tyranny over the powerless. Societies are like that, choice-wise; the more people crowd together, the more choice is given up in order to maintain order. If you want absolute power to choose what ever you want, move into the wilderness and exert your dominion over the rocks and trees, and revel in your absolute freedom. But don’t try to mingle with the rest of us who recognize that to get along, you have to give a little. There are more important things than the sanctity of your property.
Are you saying the General welfare clause means the government can do anything it wants? If so, then what does “limited government” mean? If you believe the government can do anything it wants, then why even have a constitution? We should get rid of it and allow the government to… do anything it wants.
No it isn’t. For the vast majority of human history, some humans have exerted control or dominance over others. Whether it’s because one had a bigger stick, a bigger army, or could convincingly claim god was on his side, man has never been as free as he is right now.
Freedom is certainly better, but it’s not natural.
Did you type that with a straight face?
No, Job Lock shows how out of base you are with that.
If you appreciate freedom you will be in favor of individuals not having to worry that their families will not be covered when they wish to have the freedom to look for other jobs.
You will also be in favor of having more start ups that will attract better employees and make America even better.
You think I’m only kidding? I’m being serious when I ask: Why do you hate the freedom of the American worker?
Of course I don’t. It means the government can act to protect the nation, and by extension its people. Whether it’s acting reasonably or not is for the courts to decide, as they always have.
What if all 50 states decide to implement cradle-to-grave “socialism” based on the will of the majority in those states? Would you find that less offensive than the elected federal government doing so? Or would you then push for the decision to be made at an even lower level of organization?
Or to put it another way, currently the majority of the country as a federal unit disagrees with you. If the majority everywhere in the United States ( that is in each individual state at least ) continues to move towards a greater degree of socialism as you define it, will you still react violently if that is the direction they choose, democratically choose, to go?
And yet, you’re the one threatening to murder people for voting in ways you don’t like.
Any individual need my neighbor might have - whether real or imagined - does not trump my right to own and control my property. This assumes, of course, that my property is not interfering with his natural rights.
You believe I should be forced to hand over some of my property - usually in the form of money - to someone else who has less property than I do. For their own, personal needs. I happen to disagree.
No he doesn’t. He believes you should be forced to hand over some of your property to the government, which may then hand some of it to somebody else who has less property than you do.
Perhaps you’d feel better if you just assumed that your tax dollars all go toward defense spending, and my tax dollars go to pay for mandatory abortions or something.
38% is “almost half”?
Cite. Note: these people do pay other Federal taxes: The Congressional Budget Office found that earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes.
Yes, much less offensive. At least the federal government would not be acting outside its authority.
And if that did happen, states would compete to attract people, thus increasing efficiency within each state. With the federal government in control, there is no competition, hence no incentive to be efficient.
I think defense spending is way out of control. If it were up to me, I would slash 70% of the defense budget. But at least it’s an enumerated power in the federal constitution. Abortion is not.