We are struggling together

“Our merchants and master manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.”

“By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the customs of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into, without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England.”

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess … It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

“We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate … Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate.”

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

“The violence and injustice of the rulers of mankind is an ancient evil, for which, I am afraid, the nature of human affairs can scarce admit of a remedy. But the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers, who neither are, nor ought to be, the rulers of mankind, though it cannot perhaps be corrected may very easily be prevented from disturbing the tranquility of anybody but themselves.”

– Adam Smith

:wink: In the diction of today’s “Libertarians,” Adam Smith was a Marxist, and Milton Friedman in favor of Soviet-style central planning.

“Put it this way: When Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal,” he did not mean all are of equal intelligence, or judgment, or moral character, or anything else that might be held to make one person better than another. He was making an assertion in ethics, not science – he meant only that all persons are equally ends-in-themselves – that the poor do not exist simply to minister to the needs of the rich and highborn. Or, as Thomas Paine put it, “The mass of humanity are not born with saddles on their backs, nor the fortunate few booted and spurred to ride them.” Which was indeed a radical notion in the 1770s.”

It was. The issue now, though, is that I, a member of the Hawaii middle class (which by mainland standards would actually make me look like I’m rich), do not exist to minister to the needs of poor people, the vice-versa to your assertion that the poor do not exist to minister to my needs. I do not have any right to force the poor to feed me at their expense and to their detriment, and, equally, they have no right to force me to feed them at my expense and to my detriment.

People who legitimately think they have a “right” to something that is not rightfully theirs and think they have a right to take it from me without my consent are inherently unethical. It’s theft under the guise of “fairness,” one of the most dangerous words in the English language. They’re voting away something from me that they should have no right to vote away from me. It is my right as a human being and an American citizen, “to be secure in my house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” Who are you to say that your votes override my rights?

A citizen of the United States, because that’s how the U.S. works.
Please note that even the unattributed quote specifics “unreasonable searches and seizures”, not taxation with duly elected representation.

You benefit from a vibrant, healthy community and a strong economy as much as everyone else, at least as much and probably more that your less fortunate neighbors. Governments uses taxes to create and maintain infrastructure, and to support a healthy economy and populace. That’s how it works.

A citizen. Governments, democratic or of any other form, have taxing power, have always had taxing power.

In 2012, NBC News published a study on which states received the most Federal money. (Read the criteria–they are quite detailed.)

Hawaii is #4:

By the way, I share the OP’s interest in the American Revolution, although I don’t think lacking that interest is reason enough to withdraw the franchise. This piece on the Revolution popped up–what the Mises Institute wants you to believe about the Revolution! Written by Murray Rothbard–who Wikipedia informs me also referred to “The War For Southern Independence.” (Really, that must be one of those Wikipedia legends–nobody could be that stupid.) I hope the OP’s parents are paying for a* real *historical education. One gem, plucked randomly:

Nope. The Americans used a variety of war-fighting methods, including a bit of what later was called “guerrilla” war. But they also used more conventional methods. The Battle of Yorktown used siege warfare–which had a long tradition. Also, Washington eventually found a way to use the militia but he was always an advocate for a regular army (& navy).

There’s a HUGE difference between funding the legitimate functions of the state (such as military, law enforcement/emergency services and the like) and the inherent perpetual theft that is the welfare state. The welfare state is robbery by ballot. I have no problem with funding America’s brave guys and gals in uniform, whatever that uniform is. However, why should I have to pay to feed some social leech who doesn’t pay ANYTHING for the things I mentioned, and he gets to buy steak AND lobster with MY money?

Enough said. (Thankfully, this prick got arrested.)

“By the way, I share the OP’s interest in the American Revolution, although I don’t think lacking that interest is reason enough to withdraw the franchise.”

It’s not a lack of interest, it’s a completely unbelievable lack of* knowledge of the most rudimentary facts about our country. I advocate withdrawing the franchise from people who have absolutely zero clue how our system is supposed to work.
*
Example: The ignoramuses who support reparations for slavery. If we had a mandatory civics test to qualify for the franchise, those people would learn very quickly that such a proposal is an *ex post facto *law, prohibited by the US Constitution, not to mention that such a plan would constitute a bill of attainder, also ***super illegal, ***and a violation of equal protection of the laws, since ostensibly the only people paying said reparations would be white people. (Irony: these are the same so-called “anti-racists.”)

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Article I, Section 9, US Constitution.

The people who think lobster and steak are really, truly expensive foods are losers. They’re the ones who never get ahead, never learn what the finer things in life are, and go to their graves thinking a 3000 square foot house on land that was a wheat field five years ago is the absolute height and limit of human achievement.

Then you’d know that providing for the general welfare is literally written into the Constitution.

All of that analysis falls flat when you realize reparations aren’t penalties for a crime.

So, two strikes in one post. You’re already unfit to vote, by your reckoning. Do you want to try for three?

You only strengthen my point further. Why should white people have to pay a penalty for something that A) was not a crime until 1865, B) they had NOTHING to do with, and C) literally affects NOBODY alive today?

The last known person who claimed to have adult memories of antebellum slavery in the South died in 1948, and even then, the claim is…hard to prove. Also, my great-grandfather arrived at Ellis Island in 1907, which was FORTY-TWO years after slavery was abolished. So, why should I have to pay for something I had nothing to do with, and on top of that, something my ancestors had nothing to do with? (Not to mention the inherently fascist idea of punishing people for things their ancestors did.)

And this is an example of your superior knowledge? Because it’s factually wrong.

You can’t seriously believe that. Everything that has held back African-Americans since the Civil War has been rooted in the history and legacy of slavery.

:rolleyes:

Wow. Freudian excuse, anyone? There is not a damn thing holding any man of any race back except for the man himself. Look at the late Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court Thurgood Marshall and his achievements. He didn’t bitch and moan about “how White Man keeping me down.” He WORKED FOR his law degree, he EARNED the respect of his colleagues in law, he EARNED his appointment to the Supreme Court, not to mention he made absolutely brilliant legal arguments in Brown v. Board of Education. Lord knows, that man dealt with racism, and he turned it against the morons who opposed integration just by existing, as he was a living example of the inherent colorblindness that is human achievement, thus earning his rightful place in the history books. He made his way with his mind, and the mind is only limited by man’s willingness to use it. (Mic Drop)

Who can say what he would have accomplished in the absence of racism?

The existence of an exception does not invalidate the rule. The fact that a minority of Republicans like Ben Carson does not prove that a separate subset of Republicans (Trump supporters) are not racist.

My Dad used to say “Charley Pride is a great nigger.” Does the fact that my Dad liked Charley Pride prove my Dad was not a racist?

. . . You really don’t know the first thing about American history, do you?

That’s like saying that Bill Gates’ career proves no white American has any excuse not to be a self-made billionaire.

What kind of nonsense is that, “The existence of an exception doesn’t invalidate the rule.” I call horse manure! Nothing held Thurgood back, nothing held MLK back or Dr. Ben Carson, nothing held Sen. Tim Scott back, or Congresswoman Mia Love, or how about Sir Sidney Poitier, or Samuel L. Jackson or Jamie Foxx, or how about Mr. Robert F. Smith who is worth 2 BILLION dollars from software investments? Or, dare I say Berry Gordy, the man who founded Motown Records or, just for more examples, throw in almost everyone he recorded in the 60s back when integration was actually a serious issue instead of just common sense? Do I need to go any further?

There’s nothing holding anyone (of any race) back except themselves, and blaming others for you holding yourself back is just ludicrous. You’re talking about black people like their skin color is some sort of iron lung that prevents them from doing anything as individual human beings with perfectly functioning minds. (Irony #2: That sounds completely, incredibly…um…oh, right, RACIST.)

Nothing held back Martin Luther King? You choose a man whose life was cut short by a racist assasin’s bullet to use as an example of someone who was not affected by the color of his skin?

What the fucking fuck?

I didn’t say he wasn’t* affected*. I said that MLK didn’t use his race as an excuse to go around blaming all white people for the black man’s problems. He preached a message of unity and tolerance for all, regardless of skin color, and actually GOT UP AND DID SOMETHING ABOUT the racism that pervaded American society in his time, thus earning him not only a place in the history books, but a place on our calendar. This is in stark contrast to say, Al Sharpton, who makes millions of dollars blaming white people and not actually working to solve problems.