The "Common Good"

[Thrilla]

So I have to hope they will be held accountable?

nope.. you have resign yourself to the fact that they aren't to be held accountable.

 

[Deuce]

So I have to hope they will be held accountable?

What else do you want? Personal voting power over every single person in every single Federal department and agency? Direct democratic review over every action that every department takes?

Consider:
An order to revise TSO C-145 to C-146, updating the GPS enroute precision requirement from 5 nautical miles to 2 nautical miles.

Do you vote yes or no? What percentage of the population do you think has a clue what the heck I was just talking about? How many of them are making an informed decision?

 

[Henrin]

What else do you want? Personal voting power over every single person in every single Federal department and agency?

Yes, I want the ability to hold them accountable. I would of course like it better if the fourth wing of the state was done away with, but this will do for now.

 

[Henrin]

nope.. you have resign yourself to the fact that they aren't to be held accountable.

Exactly. They get to make rules we all have to follow and there isn't a damn thing we can do if we don't like what they are doing.

 

[Deuce]

Yes, I want the ability to hold them accountable. I would of course like it better if the fourth wing of the state was done away with, but this will do for now.

The idea that direct democracy would result in better oversight is laughable.

 

[Henrin]

The idea that direct democracy would result in better oversight is laughable.

I said nothing about direct democracy, but the ability to vote for those passing rules that I must follow.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Big-government advocates typically justify their programs by saying it's for the "common good", or the "public interest", or the "national interest", whichever term you prefer. So because I am one of the "common" people, part of the "public", what it comes down is to some governmental do-gooder picking my pocket, or threatening me with fines or imprisonment, because it's "for my own good."

In the first place, I really resent the idea that someone else can say they know better than me what's "good" for me, or how better to spend my paycheck. I'm a big boy now; I can cross the street all by myself; I don't need the government to hold my hand.

But I should not complain because it's for the "common good."

What the heck does that mean, anyway? The answer is: it doesn't mean anything. It's just one of those phrases that sounds good. Whoever is in power can make it mean whatever they want it to mean. One day it means that the U.S. military must attack and invade some god-forsaken hellhole on the other side of the world. The next day it means we must cough up more money for yet another special-interest group.

So the next time you hear it from a politician, realize you're getting bamboozled.

If any type of government does anything, it is technically for the "common good" or "general welfare" of the people within that organized area or jurisdiction. Even the most simple and basic governmental services are established for the general wellbeing of the people that live there.

The issue you have isn't that government says it's doing something "for the common good," because that's a given. Everything a government does is with that intention in mind. Why would government do anything whatsoever if not for the common good? Where your problem lies is in the belief that some of those things should not be undertaken by government in the first place, whether supposedly for the common good or not.

 

[radcen]

So how do I hold those people in executive agencies accountable for what they do?

This, IMO, is a valid point. No bureaucrat, appointed or not by elected individuals, should be allowed to effect law and policy. ALL laws, rules, regulations, etc., should only be allowed to be enacted by people directly answerable to the voting populace.

The sole job of bureaucrats should be to enforce the laws, rules, and regulations that elected representatives pass.

 

[starznbarz]

Everyone is forgetting the constitution says we the people. So it is all about me when they talk about whats good for me. The constitution says we the people can overthrow government whenever we deem it necessary.

 

[Linc]

I've never seen an exact wording in the Constitution where it says 'We The People' can overthrow government whenever we deem necessary.
There's a very good reason why President Lincoln is one of the four Famous Faces on Mount Rushmore.

Why just imagine fighting Hitler and the Japanese without the USA together .

 

[Master PO]

If you want my taxes to go towards protecting your property, you're going to have to chip in too. Sorry.

You apparently believe in having other people pay for that protection.

"The congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes..." nothing in this says they're only voluntary taxes. Nothing limits this to taxes "based on commerce." You made up that requirement.

its one thing to post the constitution, however its another to understand it.

you posted article 1 section 8 clause 1...those taxes listed are COMMERCE TAXES.....they are not income taxes, because that is the 16th amendment.

my statement stated compulsory taxes, commerce taxes are indirect taxes, and people are not forced to pay them, because the exchange of commerce is a voluntary cooperation.

when you agree to buy a product that has a tax on it ....."Then you have agreed to pay the tax "voluntarily"

the founders created taxes on commerce to pay the cost for running the government.

also .....when someone is taxed on voluntary basis, that person cannot complain if the government is using the money for whatever its delegated powers are ..like the military, that some dont like.......because you agreed to the tax when you bought the product.

however when government takes your money by direct taxes [income taxes/ compulsory] you have no choice, you give it to them or go to jail, ...this violates the founding principles america was created on, and embodied in our very own constitution.

to take property by force /coercion is stealing, and there is no justification for stealing....none!

the founders created a way for government to get tax money, government levies a taxes on commerce, and states collect the tax, and send it to Washington via apportionment based on state representation......states with more voices in the house of representatives....... pay more tax.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.


heres a link to the founders on the clause you posted........read it and find a a compulsory tax on the people....thats a challenge.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_1.html

 

[Master PO]

I've never seen an exact wording in the Constitution where it says 'We The People' can overthrow government whenever we deem necessary.
There's a very good reason why President Lincoln is one of the four Famous Faces on Mount Rushmore.

Why just imagine fighting Hitler and the Japanese without the USA together .

there is no wording in the constitution... however there is wording in the declaration of independence, which is u.s. code.... non -positive law, used in federal law.

federal law recognizes the founding principles of america, and 1 principle, is the right to alter or abolish government, ..plus every state constitution, does have listed in it the right to alter or abolish said government.

 

[starznbarz]

I've never seen an exact wording in the Constitution where it says 'We The People' can overthrow government whenever we deem necessary.
There's a very good reason why President Lincoln is one of the four Famous Faces on Mount Rushmore.

Why just imagine fighting Hitler and the Japanese without the USA together .

You never seen that exact wording cause they kept changing the original constitution so the people get confused. The original constitution said We the People FOR the united states. Now it reads We the people OF the united states. Read your states constitution, it is based off the original version of the constitution. Right in Ohio's constitution bill of rights a the end says the same wording, " we the people can abolish government whenever we deem it necessary.

 

[Deuce]

I said nothing about direct democracy, but the ability to vote for those passing rules that I must follow.

You did vote for them.

And those people passed rules that said other people would be in charge of passing certain types of rules.

Because congress is neither qualified for, nor interested in, voting on every single rule regarding every single aspect of every single industry that gets regulated in any way.

 

[starznbarz]

there is no wording in the constitution... however there is wording in the declaration of independence, which is u.s. code.... non -positive law, used in federal law.

federal law recognizes the founding principles of america, and 1 principle, is the right to alter or abolish government, ..plus every state constitution, does have listed in it the right to alter or abolish said government.

Has nobody done any research? The original constitution does state it exact. Just like every states constitution must reference the us constitution.

For example Ohio Constitution

Article 8 section 1. That all men are born equally free and independent, have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights.....being founded on their sole authority, and organized for the great purpose of protecting their rights and effect these ends, they have at all times a complete power to alter, reform or abolish their government, whenever they deem it necessary.
Article 8 section 28. To guard against the transgressions of the high powers, which we have delegated, remain with the people.

 

[radcen]

I've never seen an exact wording in the Constitution where it says 'We The People' can overthrow government whenever we deem necessary.
There's a very good reason why President Lincoln is one of the four Famous Faces on Mount Rushmore.

Why just imagine fighting Hitler and the Japanese without the USA together .

I'd be willing to bet there was no wording saying we were allowed to declare independence and kick out the Brits, either. I guess we should correct the errors of our ways and fall back in line, eh?

 

[matchlight]

nope.. you have resign yourself to the fact that they aren't to be held accountable.

One solution to that is to vote in a Congress and President who are willing to make laws to dissolve certain federal administrative departments and agencies. The Departments of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency would be good ones to start with.

 

[TurtleDude]

Spoken like someone who is unapologetically self-centered. It's not all about you. Nor should it be.

typical position of someone who tries to use the "common good" to justify leaching off of others. The major task of a lefty is pretending envy and spite towards those who are successful is really motivated by "the public good"

 

[TurtleDude]

In other words, I'm a libertarian because I'm an extremely selfish individual.

what is more selfish?

1) objecting to being parasitized by people who DO NOTHING to contribute to your success or

2) demanding others pay for your existence because you are too lazy or too untalented to provide yourself for what you want

socialism and other collectivist schemes are the really SELFISH philosophies because they are based on a looter mentality

 

[radcen]

typical position of someone who tries to use the "common good" to justify leaching off of others. The major task of a lefty is pretending envy and spite towards those who are successful is really motivated by "the public good"

Yet all people... including yourself... benefit directly from some level of the "common good". You live in a relatively garbage-free and sewage-free environment... and hence, healthier environment... because "we" collectively take care of this stuff for the common good.

Now, do we sometimes get carried away and go too far? Sure. Doesn't negate the base benefit, though.

Absolute freedom sounds wonderful, but do you really want your next door neighbor to have an open above-ground cesspool right next to your property line?

 

[Visbek]

Big-government advocates typically justify their programs by saying it's for the "common good", or the "public interest", or the "national interest", whichever term you prefer. So because I am one of the "common" people, part of the "public", what it comes down is to some governmental do-gooder picking my pocket, or threatening me with fines or imprisonment, because it's "for my own good."

No, it refers to goods and services that are useful to the health and benefit of the society at large.

A watershed is an example of a common good. Excess water runs off into these areas, which typically soak them up, and prevent them from flooding nearby areas. When we develop watershed areas, that will exacerbate flooding in the entire region.

National parks are another example. As a publicly owned resource, we can guarantee that the land will be protected for generations, and will be accessible to the entire society. Private ownership does not meet either of these goals, as the land may be damaged by development.

Pollution is another matter of public and national interest. If a factory down the street produces a wide range of pollutants and toxic substances, the effects don't end at their property line. They don't even end at the state line, or national lines. E.g. for years, pollutants in US factories produced acid rain all across North America, including Canada.

And yes, military is another common good, and one where you can have an effect -- if you get your butt off the couch and act on your opinions.

The fact that claims of the common good or national interest can be abused is insufficient to declare that "there is no such thing as the common good."

In the first place, I really resent the idea that someone else can say they know better than me what's "good" for me, or how better to spend my paycheck.

Then I guess you'd better move to an island. Or live on a sailboat, more than 20 miles offshore.

The reality is that you live in a society, and your decisions affect other people. You are fortunate enough to live in a society, by the way, that does allow you input to many of these decisions. You cannot unilaterally declare that you won't pay taxes, but you can influence decisions such as how much land can be held by the public, or what type of uses it's for.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yet all people... including yourself... benefit directly from some level of the "common good". You live in a relatively garbage-free and sewage-free environment... and hence, healthier environment... because "we" collectively take care of this stuff for the common good.

Now, do we sometimes get carried away and go too far? Sure. Doesn't negate the base benefit, though.

Absolute freedom sounds wonderful, but do you really want your next door neighbor to have an open above-ground cesspool right next to your property line?

paying for sanitation and the police is very different than handouts to specific people or groups

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yet all people... including yourself... benefit directly from some level of the "common good". You live in a relatively garbage-free and sewage-free environment... and hence, healthier environment... because "we" collectively take care of this stuff for the common good.

Now, do we sometimes get carried away and go too far? Sure. Doesn't negate the base benefit, though.

Absolute freedom sounds wonderful, but do you really want your next door neighbor to have an open above-ground cesspool right next to your property line?

While your example makes compete sense, the "common good" argument often goes well beyond that. In my small town we now have a tax that covers mandatory trash pickup and recycling services. There is no way to "opt out" even if you provide proof that you have a private contract for trash/recycling removal (readily available at 1/2 the amount of the recent tax increase) unless you are operating a commercial business (which, of course, means that you are already paying more in local taxes). It was, indeed, a clever move by the town's government - provide a "mandated" service (they simply use a contractor to handle the actual trash/recycling pick-up) and then charge a monthly tax that is double that amount - all for the "common good", of course.

 

[radcen]

While your example makes compete sense, the "common good" argument often goes well beyond that. In my small town we now have a tax that covers mandatory trash pickup and recycling services. There is no way to "opt out" even if you provide proof that you have a private contract for trash/recycling removal (readily available at 1/2 the amount of the recent tax increase) unless you are operating a commercial business (which, of course, means that you are already paying more in local taxes). It was, indeed, a clever move by the town's government - provide a "mandated" service (they simply use a contractor to handle the actual trash/recycling pick-up) and then charge a monthly tax that is double that amount - all for the "common good", of course.

I used to live in a town that did the same thing, and I agree that's not right, either. That would be an example of "going too far".

 

[ttwtt78640]

I used to live in a town that did the same thing, and I agree that's not right, either. That would be an example of "going too far".

The really stupid part is that if you do not pay the tax (on time) then they stop the trash service (since we have no local police or court to enforce any fines). Of course, that moronic policy results in an increase in roadside dumping and the associated added clean-up costs coming at public expense. Common good is not always common sense.