The justification for wealth-redistribution.[W:2037]

[danielpalos]

The General Welfare clause does give congress the power to provide for the general welfare. You keep pretending that you don't know the difference between general welfare and PRIVATE welfare, though. Wealth redistribution through socialist welfare progrrams isn't "general welfare". It's wealth redistribution from specific people to other specific people. There's no "general" about it and it's not something that benefits everyone like roads, bridges, courts, a military, etc.

You should hare read the article I provided for you. It would have been educational for you.

Unfortunately for you; I already know the difference between private laws and public laws in the US.

 

[Arbo]

The general welfare should mean Pareto Optimality whenever possible; any questions?

I did not ask what it SHOULD mean. I asked what the term means. So are you going to grace us with your definition of what it means and what it gives gov power to do or not do?

And the little theory you mentioned is just that, theory.

 

[danielpalos]

I did not ask what it SHOULD mean. I asked what the term means. So are you going to grace us with your definition of what it means and what it gives gov power to do or not do?

And the little theory you mentioned is just that, theory.

That is what it means to me. Can you provide any explanation as to why that should not be the case in regard to the general welfare?

 

[Arbo]

How come you think that I'm obligated to defend my ideas to people who may or may not have sufficient cognitive wherewithal to understand them, but you have no obligation?

You are not obligated to anything. But you have yet to back up anything you have said. We know why, and you are not fooling anyone. It's not about me, so yet again your normal spin fails.

 

[Arbo]

That is what it means to me. Can you provide any explanation as to why that should not be the case in regard to the general welfare?

Well, if I said 'general welfare' meant that all people need to give me money to provide for my kids, that would be me saying 'what it means to me.' It would also be irrelevant WRT what it means in relation to the Constitution and it's actual intent.

You have suggested that it means something in terms of 'welfare' for those in need. Is that your belief or not, and what do you have to support that suggestion as the actual intent of the term?

 

[PMZ]

If I go to the grocery store and buy a jug of water, I own that water. If someone accosts me in the parking lot and steals that jug of water, he has robbed me of my property.



Actually, the initiation of aggression against others is dangerous to humanity. Respect for the person and property of others is the only way to achieve peace and prosperity.

Throwing away resources that are critical for the survival of life, just because you can, is a crime against humanity. The ultimate in irresponsibility. As despicable an act as there is.

Aggression against your person as a result would be entirely justified.

 

[danielpalos]

Well, if I said 'general welfare' meant that all people need to give me money to provide for my kids, that would be me saying 'what it means to me.' It would also be irrelevant WRT what it means in relation to the Constitution and it's actual intent.

You have suggested that it means something in terms of 'welfare' for those in need. Is that your belief or not, and what do you have to support that suggestion as the actual intent of the term?

It simply depends on implementation. You may want to compare and contrast private laws in the US.

Providing for the general welfare could imply ensuring full employment of resources in any given market, but especially the market for labor.

 

[PMZ]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

It's like talking to a stump with you. Except that in this case, it's a stump that can talk and says really stupid things.

What you have to say is entirely useless. You can't even define it, much less support it.

Whatever government is, is too big, is a level of nonsense rarely achieved.

 

[PMZ]

The General Welfare clause does give congress the power to provide for the general welfare. You keep pretending that you don't know the difference between general welfare and PRIVATE welfare, though. Wealth redistribution through socialist welfare progrrams isn't "general welfare". It's wealth redistribution from specific people to other specific people. There's no "general" about it and it's not something that benefits everyone like roads, bridges, courts, a military, etc.

You should hare read the article I provided for you. It would have been educational for you.

You keep acting like something is true because you believe it, despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Like reality.

It's critical for the survival of the country that people like you be kept as far away from responsibility for anything, as possible. Fortunately every word you write insures that result in a democracy.

 

[PMZ]

You are not obligated to anything. But you have yet to back up anything you have said. We know why, and you are not fooling anyone. It's not about me, so yet again your normal spin fails.

If you don't understand simple concepts, who is it about? Who do you blame?

 

[Arbo]

It simply depends on implementation. You may want to compare and contrast private laws in the US.

Providing for the general welfare could imply ensuring full employment of resources in any given market, but especially the market for labor.

Again, it's not about 'could imply' either. What do the words mean in context with the Constitution and how the words were used at the time. It is a very easy question. If you don't know the answer just say so.

If you don't understand simple concepts, who is it about? Who do you blame?

You bring nothing resembling 'debate' to a debate forum. I'm pretty sure you don't even understand the concept.

 

[PMZ]

Again, it's not about 'could imply' either. What do the words mean in context with the Constitution and how the words were used at the time. It is a very easy question. If you don't know the answer just say so.



You bring nothing resembling 'debate' to a debate forum. I'm pretty sure you don't even understand the concept.

Another example of what you believe to be debate.

 

[Arbo]

Another example of what you believe to be debate.

You really offer nothing but wasting time eh? Look, at this point it's understood who and what you are, and that you are incapable of actual debate, as you have proven time and time again you don't get it, nor are you capable of structuring your thoughts in a cohesive manner and backing them with data. One line drive by postings of empty-headed nonsense is all we see from PMZ.

But if you think you understand the concept, explain how debate works. This will give me yet another thing to laugh at today.

 

[danielpalos]

Again, it's not about 'could imply' either. What do the words mean in context with the Constitution and how the words were used at the time. It is a very easy question. If you don't know the answer just say so.

here is some clue as to what was meant by the specifically enumerated, General Powers:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Those explanations and qualifications should give us some understanding.

 

[Arbo]

here is some clue as to what was meant by the specifically enumerated, General Powers:

I know what the general powers are. What we are talking about is that 'general welfare'. So can you define what it meant when written or not? Or do you just prefer to keep avoiding answering because it goes against what you wish it meant?

 

[danielpalos]

I know what the general powers are. What we are talking about is that 'general welfare'. So can you define what it meant when written or not? Or do you just prefer to keep avoiding answering because it goes against what you wish it meant?

Did you miss the explanations and qualifications?

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

The Federalist Number 41

 

[PMZ]

Clearly, at the center of this utopian community is the worship of wealth.

I was wrong before in what I said about it's utopian belief in perfect people.

At its root is only a variation in that. It is that the wealthy are perfect people whose perfection is pure God given entitlement. Mankind shall not rent asunder the riches God has granted them. Those riches are power. The entitlement to rule over others.

As was true of their utopian society predecessors, such nonsense is clearly something that they are free to believe. That's the real freedom of America as compared to their illusionary "freedom" of entitlement. That only money is power, and it is unlimited.

In our democracy, it is in our power to render their fantasy impotent. And it is essential that we continue to do so.

As the French and American revolutionaries before us did, we need to send the message clearly and often that this is our land. That the pretense of the Royal Courts of London and Versailles may look grand, but they are hollow. We don't need anything more than our votes to do that. And our belief in real freedom and real progress and in work and problem solving and the power of the middle class consumers and workers and voters.

Let them rely on their wealth. Let us rely on each other.

 

[PMZ]

You really offer nothing but wasting time eh? Look, at this point it's understood who and what you are, and that you are incapable of actual debate, as you have proven time and time again you don't get it, nor are you capable of structuring your thoughts in a cohesive manner and backing them with data. One line drive by postings of empty-headed nonsense is all we see from PMZ.

But if you think you understand the concept, explain how debate works. This will give me yet another thing to laugh at today.

Still another example. They are apparently endless.

 

[Arbo]

Did you miss the explanations and qualifications?

At this point, I will merely accept that you believe, though it false, that 'general welfare' simply means 'welfare', as you refuse to continue to discuss the origin of the phrase.

Still another example. They are apparently endless.

Yes, another example of you refusing to address anything. They are endless. And perhaps someday you will learn to quote multiple posts and save us pages of your empty rhetoric and lame attacks.

 

[PMZ]

At this point, I will merely accept that you believe, though it false, that 'general welfare' simply means 'welfare', as you refuse to continue to discuss the origin of the phrase.



Yes, another example of you refusing to address anything. They are endless. And perhaps someday you will learn to quote multiple posts and save us pages of your empty rhetoric and lame attacks.

When you have nothing to say, try saying nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

At this point, I will merely accept that you believe, though it false, that 'general welfare' simply means 'welfare', as you refuse to continue to discuss the origin of the phrase.

I am not sure what you mean; our Founding Fathers did an most excellent and non-ambiguous job with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land; it contains all of the "means of production" to enable its existence.

Here it is again for your ease and convenience:

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;

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

 

[Federalist]

Throwing away resources that are critical for the survival of life, just because you can, is a crime against humanity. The ultimate in irresponsibility. As despicable an act as there is.

Aggression against your person as a result would be entirely justified.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that if I buy a gallon of water from the grocery store and dump that gallon of water down the drain, you would feel justified in initiating aggression against me?

Statism truly is a disease.

 

[Misterveritis]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

"It sounds like you agree with me. We need a Constitutional amendment that says the government may take no more than 15% of an individual's income no matter what the source. If we had that your problem and mine would both be solved."

If we followed your advice the country wouldn't last a year.

But, I think that you know that.

Why do you believe a nation that followed its Constitution could not last a year?

 

[Misterveritis]

here is some clue as to what was meant by the specifically enumerated, General Powers:
Article 1 section 8...

Those explanations and qualifications should give us some understanding.

If only they actually did.

Which enumerated power allows the federal government to seize my wealth to give to others? None of them do. The government has become evil.

 

[Misterveritis]

Clearly, at the center of this utopian community is the worship of wealth.

I was wrong before in what I said about it's utopian belief in perfect people.

At its root is only a variation in that. It is that the wealthy are perfect people whose perfection is pure God given entitlement. Mankind shall not rent asunder the riches God has granted them. Those riches are power. The entitlement to rule over others.

As was true of their utopian society predecessors, such nonsense is clearly something that they are free to believe. That's the real freedom of America as compared to their illusionary "freedom" of entitlement. That only money is power, and it is unlimited.

In our democracy, it is in our power to render their fantasy impotent. And it is essential that we continue to do so.

As the French and American revolutionaries before us did, we need to send the message clearly and often that this is our land. That the pretense of the Royal Courts of London and Versailles may look grand, but they are hollow. We don't need anything more than our votes to do that. And our belief in real freedom and real progress and in work and problem solving and the power of the middle class consumers and workers and voters.

Let them rely on their wealth. Let us rely on each other.

If only you and your leftist brethren believed it. But you do not.

My most important right concerning government is my right to be left alone.