|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 26, 2014 15:09:37 GMT
There is no longer any need for you to reply to this thread. As of today, I am entirely finished with it. Or we could return to the original topic which is federal taxation. There is much to discuss on that topic. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 26, 2014 19:43:41 GMT
There is no longer any need for you to reply to this thread. As of today, I am entirely finished with it. Or we could return to the original topic which is federal taxation. There is much to discuss on that topic. Okay. Works for me. I will certainly respond to that. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 28, 2014 14:28:10 GMT
Or we could return to the original topic which is federal taxation. There is much to discuss on that topic. Okay. Works for me. I will certainly respond to that.
Cool. Let's look at a single program to start with.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility#Immigrant Eligibility
Eligibility is based upon financial resources, income, and household size and the benefits vary base upon these criteria. We must assume that this is based upon an analysis of the costs of food as a component of financial resources, income, and family size.
It is a "welfare program" that, as I recall, costs about $80 billion per year and provides benefits to about 40 million households. I could be wrong but the actual numbers are somewhat irrelevant to the problem. How do we reduce the expenditure without simply taking food off the table of those that require the assistance?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 29, 2014 20:15:46 GMT
Okay. Works for me. I will certainly respond to that.
Cool. Let's look at a single program to start with.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility#Immigrant Eligibility
Eligibility is based upon financial resources, income, and household size and the benefits vary base upon these criteria. We must assume that this is based upon an analysis of the costs of food as a component of financial resources, income, and family size.
It is a "welfare program" that, as I recall, costs about $80 billion per year and provides benefits to about 40 million households. I could be wrong but the actual numbers are somewhat irrelevant to the problem. How do we reduce the expenditure without simply taking food off the table of those that require the assistance?
Fair quetrion. But I believe--as I have stated previously--that the proper way to go is exclusively through private charities (which, you have claimed, are inadequate to the task at hand). You claim to be a "libertarian." But how, exactly, does libertarianism square with the doctrine of Big Government? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 30, 2014 4:42:49 GMT
Cool. Let's look at a single program to start with.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility#Immigrant Eligibility
Eligibility is based upon financial resources, income, and household size and the benefits vary base upon these criteria. We must assume that this is based upon an analysis of the costs of food as a component of financial resources, income, and family size.
It is a "welfare program" that, as I recall, costs about $80 billion per year and provides benefits to about 40 million households. I could be wrong but the actual numbers are somewhat irrelevant to the problem. How do we reduce the expenditure without simply taking food off the table of those that require the assistance?
Fair quetrion. But I believe--as I have stated previously--that the proper way to go is exclusively through private charities (which, you have claimed, are inadequate to the task at hand). You claim to be a "libertarian." But how, exactly, does libertarianism square with the doctrine of Big Government?
I wouldn't disagree with replacing SNAP with private charities based upon the private charities picking up the roughly $80 billion in benefits in the process. The problem is that the private charities won't pick up this financial shortfall based upon any information I have. Additionally it would be fundamentally harmful to much of the economy if this benefit was provided for by food banks as opposed to markets (think of how many markets would go out of business because the food banks would supply the food). Of course I don't worry about the markets going out of business per se but I still don't see any likelihood of private food banks being able to provide $80 billion more in food benefits than they're already providing today.
Yes, I'd like to see a dramatic reduction in the government expenditures related to the SNAP program and as I card-carrying Libertarian I'd want to see that happen by addressing measures that reduce the proverty. Instead of even attempting to rely on private charities that can't carry the load I'd prefer to see policy changes that eliminate the poverty so that the need is reduced and/or eliminated completely.
As I've addressed on another thread I see a real problem related to "property" in the United States where it's based upon "statutory ownership (title) of property" as opposed to the "natural right of property" and it is my belief that by addressing "property" as a "right of the person" as opposed to "statutory ownership" that much of the poverty can be eliminated or at least dramatically reduced.
Reducing Poverty = Reducing Welfare (regardless of whether it's public or private welfare assistance)
As a Libertarian I'm an advocate of the "inalienable (natural) rights of the person" and I believe that when it comes to poverty the issue needs to be resolved by converting of our ownership of property from "statutory title" to the "right of property" of the person. It is not an easy transition but I believe that is the key to ending most poverty. That is not an easy proposition to sell as I've found that most people don't typically know the difference between the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 5, 2015 18:49:07 GMT
Fair quetrion. But I believe--as I have stated previously--that the proper way to go is exclusively through private charities (which, you have claimed, are inadequate to the task at hand). You claim to be a "libertarian." But how, exactly, does libertarianism square with the doctrine of Big Government?
I wouldn't disagree with replacing SNAP with private charities based upon the private charities picking up the roughly $80 billion in benefits in the process. The problem is that the private charities won't pick up this financial shortfall based upon any information I have. Additionally it would be fundamentally harmful to much of the economy if this benefit was provided for by food banks as opposed to markets (think of how many markets would go out of business because the food banks would supply the food). Of course I don't worry about the markets going out of business per se but I still don't see any likelihood of private food banks being able to provide $80 billion more in food benefits than they're already providing today.
Yes, I'd like to see a dramatic reduction in the government expenditures related to the SNAP program and as I card-carrying Libertarian I'd want to see that happen by addressing measures that reduce the proverty. Instead of even attempting to rely on private charities that can't carry the load I'd prefer to see policy changes that eliminate the poverty so that the need is reduced and/or eliminated completely.
As I've addressed on another thread I see a real problem related to "property" in the United States where it's based upon "statutory ownership (title) of property" as opposed to the "natural right of property" and it is my belief that by addressing "property" as a "right of the person" as opposed to "statutory ownership" that much of the poverty can be eliminated or at least dramatically reduced.
Reducing Poverty = Reducing Welfare (regardless of whether it's public or private welfare assistance)
As a Libertarian I'm an advocate of the "inalienable (natural) rights of the person" and I believe that when it comes to poverty the issue needs to be resolved by converting of our ownership of property from "statutory title" to the "right of property" of the person. It is not an easy transition but I believe that is the key to ending most poverty. That is not an easy proposition to sell as I've found that most people don't typically know the difference between the two.
What would you do, as regarding those mega-millions of Americans who have already paid for their property? Would you simply strip them of all ownership? If so, would you reimburse them? And how might you go about doing that, since most (presumably) do not still possess the documentation showing exactly how much they paid for their property? And to declare that all the money paid out by the federal government for welfare assistance should be matched by private charities, is simply absurd. As I have pointed out previously, some of those on welfare assistance are among the truly needy; others lack any real ambition; and still others are fundamentally lazy. (The many people I see along the highways--usually near shopping centers--holding signs, declaring, "Homeless, Please Help," probably fall into one of these last two categories.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 6, 2015 13:08:25 GMT
What would you do, as regarding those mega-millions of Americans who have already paid for their property? Would you simply strip them of all ownership? If so, would you reimburse them? And how might you go about doing that, since most (presumably) do not still possess the documentation showing exactly how much they paid for their property? And to declare that all the money paid out by the federal government for welfare assistance should be matched by private charities, is simply absurd. As I have pointed out previously, some of those on welfare assistance are among the truly needy; others lack any real ambition; and still others are fundamentally lazy. (The many people I see along the highways--usually near shopping centers--holding signs, declaring, "Homeless, Please Help," probably fall into one of these last two categories.)
While our ownership of property is based upon "statutory title" it doesn't imply that the vast majority of Americans haven't also established a "natural (inalienable) right" of ownership as well. A person living in a single-family home where they are maintaining the home and property is expending labor on that land which establishes the "right of property" alone with their "statutory title" to it. Some require larger lots sizes than others and they establish the "right of property" to those larger lot sizes by expending their labor to maintain the property.
The "right of property" is established by the "sweat equity" (labor) of the person and that sweat equity has to be invested every year in the property to retain the "right of property" to the land. If the sweat equity ends then ulitmately so does the right of property to the land.
There are millions of acres of privately owned land where the owners are doing absolutely nothing with that land. The top 10 land owners have an average ownership of 400,000 acres and there is no way on Earth they can expend the labor necessary to retain a "right of property" to that land. The owners have "statutory title" but do not have a "right of property" related to the land they own.
Here is where we would agree. To transition from laws based upon "statutory title" (as created under the divine right of kings) to laws based upon the "right of property" is very problematic.
That doesn't imply that we shouldn't make this transition but instead that a lot of problems will be encountered and must be resolved along the way.
The problem with your opinion on SNAP assistance is two-fold.
First is the fact that the number of people that "lack any real ambition; and still others are fundamentally lazy" is statistically relatively very small. According to government statistics 90% of those that collect SNAP benefits work in the year before and/or the year after collecting SNAP for any individual year. The vast majority of SNAP recepients are hard working Americans or those that can't work for numerous justifiable reasons such as disability and old age. Remember that about 1/3rd of all Social Security retirees also qualify for SNAP because of the low Social Security benefits.
Next is the fact that private charities, like food banks, don't have any restrictive qualification requirements on receiving the food. All a person has to do to obtain food from NW Harvest is to walk in the door to qualify. The problem is that because of limited resources the food is highly rationed and no one can survive on the food they receive from the food bank.
Lacking any "qualification" requirements the number of people depending on the food bank, if SNAP was eliminated, the number of people would be far greater and the amount of food would not significantly increase resulting in even greater rationing to the point that millions of people would starve to death. Even today a person can only survive for about 2-days on the food provided by NW Harvest that would have to last a week between visits for the individual if SNAP was eliminated. Many of those that currently use NW Harvest are already collecting SNAP and the food bank would be overwhelmed if SNAP was terminated.
You have not made a proposal for reducing SNAP benefits that wouldn't result in starvation of millions of "hard working Americans and those incapable of working" and I don't believe you can. The only way to reduce SNAP benefits is to reduce poverty that creates the necessity for SNAP.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 7, 2015 21:37:56 GMT
What would you do, as regarding those mega-millions of Americans who have already paid for their property? Would you simply strip them of all ownership? If so, would you reimburse them? And how might you go about doing that, since most (presumably) do not still possess the documentation showing exactly how much they paid for their property? And to declare that all the money paid out by the federal government for welfare assistance should be matched by private charities, is simply absurd. As I have pointed out previously, some of those on welfare assistance are among the truly needy; others lack any real ambition; and still others are fundamentally lazy. (The many people I see along the highways--usually near shopping centers--holding signs, declaring, "Homeless, Please Help," probably fall into one of these last two categories.)
While our ownership of property is based upon "statutory title" it doesn't imply that the vast majority of Americans haven't also established a "natural (inalienable) right" of ownership as well. A person living in a single-family home where they are maintaining the home and property is expending labor on that land which establishes the "right of property" alone with their "statutory title" to it. Some require larger lots sizes than others and they establish the "right of property" to those larger lot sizes by expending their labor to maintain the property.
The "right of property" is established by the "sweat equity" (labor) of the person and that sweat equity has to be invested every year in the property to retain the "right of property" to the land. If the sweat equity ends then ulitmately so does the right of property to the land.
There are millions of acres of privately owned land where the owners are doing absolutely nothing with that land. The top 10 land owners have an average ownership of 400,000 acres and there is no way on Earth they can expend the labor necessary to retain a "right of property" to that land. The owners have "statutory title" but do not have a "right of property" related to the land they own.
Here is where we would agree. To transition from laws based upon "statutory title" (as created under the divine right of kings) to laws based upon the "right of property" is very problematic.
That doesn't imply that we shouldn't make this transition but instead that a lot of problems will be encountered and must be resolved along the way.
The problem with your opinion on SNAP assistance is two-fold.
First is the fact that the number of people that "lack any real ambition; and still others are fundamentally lazy" is statistically relatively very small. According to government statistics 90% of those that collect SNAP benefits work in the year before and/or the year after collecting SNAP for any individual year. The vast majority of SNAP recepients are hard working Americans or those that can't work for numerous justifiable reasons such as disability and old age. Remember that about 1/3rd of all Social Security retirees also qualify for SNAP because of the low Social Security benefits.
Next is the fact that private charities, like food banks, don't have any restrictive qualification requirements on receiving the food. All a person has to do to obtain food from NW Harvest is to walk in the door to qualify. The problem is that because of limited resources the food is highly rationed and no one can survive on the food they receive from the food bank.
Lacking any "qualification" requirements the number of people depending on the food bank, if SNAP was eliminated, the number of people would be far greater and the amount of food would not significantly increase resulting in even greater rationing to the point that millions of people would starve to death. Even today a person can only survive for about 2-days on the food provided by NW Harvest that would have to last a week between visits for the individual if SNAP was eliminated. Many of those that currently use NW Harvest are already collecting SNAP and the food bank would be overwhelmed if SNAP was terminated.
You have not made a proposal for reducing SNAP benefits that wouldn't result in starvation of millions of "hard working Americans and those incapable of working" and I don't believe you can. The only way to reduce SNAP benefits is to reduce poverty that creates the necessity for SNAP.
For some (inexplicable) reason, you continue to equate private charities with "food bank ." But even if no food banks existed in America--or ever would exist in America--it would not change my position one whit. I am in favor of private charities' giving money to deserving recipients, to use however they choose: for food, for clothing, or for anything else they desire.
And why should I stay awake at night, worrying that "[t]he Top 10 land owners have an average ownership of 400,000 acres"? Even if this is correct--and I have no way of knowing if it is or is not--so what? How, exactly, might our breaking up that ownership do anything to enhance my everyday life?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 8, 2015 13:52:39 GMT
For some (inexplicable) reason, you continue to equate private charities with "food bank." But even if no food banks existed in America--or ever would exist in America--it would not change my position one whit. I am in favor of private charities' giving money to deserving recipients, to use however they choose: for food, for clothing, or for anything else they desire. And why should I stay awake at night, worrying that "[t]he Top 10 land owners have an average ownership of 400,000 acres"? Even if this is correct--and I have no way of knowing if it is or is not--so what? How, exactly, might our breaking up that ownership do anything to enhance my everyday life?
You continue to ignore the fact that private charities are, and have always been, incapable of providing assistance to all deserving recipients. In fact private charities can only provide assistance to a small percentage of those in need. So what is your proposal for the tens of millions of Americans that are deserving but that private charities cannot provide assistance for? Is your proposal for tens of millions of Americans to "roam the streets and starve" because that's exactly what would happen.
Your last statement reflects an "all about me and screw everyone else" attitude. You're obviously address this based upon how you would personally benefit as opposed to how society as a whole would benefit. In blunt words your opinion is shaped by "personal greed" as opposed to being concerned with the "right of property" of all people in society.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 9, 2015 18:33:47 GMT
For some (inexplicable) reason, you continue to equate private charities with "food bank." But even if no food banks existed in America--or ever would exist in America--it would not change my position one whit. I am in favor of private charities' giving money to deserving recipients, to use however they choose: for food, for clothing, or for anything else they desire. And why should I stay awake at night, worrying that "[t]he Top 10 land owners have an average ownership of 400,000 acres"? Even if this is correct--and I have no way of knowing if it is or is not--so what? How, exactly, might our breaking up that ownership do anything to enhance my everyday life?
You continue to ignore the fact that private charities are, and have always been, incapable of providing assistance to all deserving recipients. In fact private charities can only provide assistance to a small percentage of those in need. So what is your proposal for the tens of millions of Americans that are deserving but that private charities cannot provide assistance for? Is your proposal for tens of millions of Americans to "roam the streets and starve" because that's exactly what would happen.
Your last statement reflects an "all about me and screw everyone else" attitude. You're obviously address this based upon how you would personally benefit as opposed to how society as a whole would benefit. In blunt words your opinion is shaped by "personal greed" as opposed to being concerned with the "right of property" of all people in society.
Yes, I am indeed most concerned with how it might affect me if the private ownership of vast swaths of land were changed. No apology for that. But I also cannot see how it might affect others in a positive manner. Can you? (Note: You appear to be far less concerned with reforming American society at the margins than you are with fundamentally transforming American society. And I remain entirely opposed to the latter. In my opinion, there has never been a society, anywhere in the world, as wonderful as contemporary American society is. Which is why I deeply believe in the doctrine of American Exceptionalism.) Moreover, even "deserving recipients" of charity are not really entitled to assistance. Whereas it should certainly be morally incumbent upon the rest of us to assist those who cannot adequately support themselves, they have no legal right to that assistance. Not according to the thinking that undergirds the US Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 10, 2015 13:30:41 GMT
Yes, I am indeed most concerned with how it might affect me if the private ownership of vast swaths of land were changed. No apology for that. But I also cannot see how it might affect others in a positive manner. Can you? (Note: You appear to be far less concerned with reforming American society at the margins than you are with fundamentally transforming American society. And I remain entirely opposed to the latter. In my opinion, there has never been a society, anywhere in the world, as wonderful as contemporary American society is. Which is why I deeply believe in the doctrine of American Exceptionalism.) Moreover, even "deserving recipients" of charity are not really entitled to assistance. Whereas it should certainly be morally incumbent upon the rest of us to assist those who cannot adequately support themselves, they have no legal right to that assistance. Not according to the thinking that undergirds the US Constitution.
Starting with your last point first the "thinking that undergirds the US Constitution" is the Declaration of Independence that, in establishing the political ideology of the United States, was based the Second Treatise of Civil Government. I would argue that an individual is entitled to "compensatory damages" when their "inalienable (natural) right of property" are violated based upon the "statutory laws of property" of the United States. Welfare assistance reflects "compensetory damages" and is necessitated based upon the violations of the "inalienable (natural) rights of property" as established by Chapter 5 of the Second Treatise of Civil Government. A person has a legal right under contract law to compensatory damages when their "right of property" is violated resulting in a financial loss.
Yes, I can see a huge benefit to society in general if we replace "statutory ownership" of land and natural resources with the "natural (inalienable) right of property" related to the land and natural resources.
There would be no poverty in the United States for any that are willing to work to provide for the survival and comfort of their household.
There would always remain the disabled, the infirmed, the old, and the very young that cannot provide for themselves but there would be no poverty for the workers of America.
In the meantime we need to get back to the issue of SNAP. You have still not provided any recommendations that would reduce the costs of the program without adversely affecting the hard working Americans that depend upon it because they don't receive enough in compensation from employment to live on.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 12, 2015 18:59:09 GMT
Yes, I am indeed most concerned with how it might affect me if the private ownership of vast swaths of land were changed. No apology for that. But I also cannot see how it might affect others in a positive manner. Can you? (Note: You appear to be far less concerned with reforming American society at the margins than you are with fundamentally transforming American society. And I remain entirely opposed to the latter. In my opinion, there has never been a society, anywhere in the world, as wonderful as contemporary American society is. Which is why I deeply believe in the doctrine of American Exceptionalism.) Moreover, even "deserving recipients" of charity are not really entitled to assistance. Whereas it should certainly be morally incumbent upon the rest of us to assist those who cannot adequately support themselves, they have no legal right to that assistance. Not according to the thinking that undergirds the US Constitution.
Starting with your last point first the "thinking that undergirds the US Constitution" is the Declaration of Independence that, in establishing the political ideology of the United States, was based the Second Treatise of Civil Government. I would argue that an individual is entitled to "compensatory damages" when their "inalienable (natural) right of property" are violated based upon the "statutory laws of property" of the United States. Welfare assistance reflects "compensetory damages" and is necessitated based upon the violations of the "inalienable (natural) rights of property" as established by Chapter 5 of the Second Treatise of Civil Government. A person has a legal right under contract law to compensatory damages when their "right of property" is violated resulting in a financial loss.
Yes, I can see a huge benefit to society in general if we replace "statutory ownership" of land and natural resources with the "natural (inalienable) right of property" related to the land and natural resources.
There would be no poverty in the United States for any that are willing to work to provide for the survival and comfort of their household.
There would always remain the disabled, the infirmed, the old, and the very young that cannot provide for themselves but there would be no poverty for the workers of America.
In the meantime we need to get back to the issue of SNAP. You have still not provided any recommendations that would reduce the costs of the program without adversely affecting the hard working Americans that depend upon it because they don't receive enough in compensation from employment to live on.
It is simply not a proper function of the US government to ensure that each individual in the US "receive enough in compensation from employment to live on." That is the obligation of each individual; and if he (or she) is physically or mentally unable to do so, then it is the proper function of private charities to address that.
I like what was said on this matter--rather succinctly--by James Madison (who is probably my favorite of the Founders):
That sums up my own view precisely.
Once again, you seem to disparage "statutory laws," as if John Locke's "The Second Treatise of Civil Government" were to be regarded as the the only thing that really matters; and we could (and should) simply dispense with all our civil and criminal statutes, and rely upon the courts' interpretations of this document to guide us, legally.
I will say it again: You wish to fundamentally transform America, from its current state. And I emphatically do not.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 13, 2015 17:49:40 GMT
It is simply not a proper function of the US government to ensure that each individual in the US "receive enough in compensation from employment to live on." That is the obligation of each individual; and if he (or she) is physically or mentally unable to do so, then it is the proper function of private charities to address that.
How about I address this from an "American" political ideology standpoint. The following two lines from the Declaration of Independence establish that our government is responsible for protectiong our inalienable (unalienable) rights. That is it's purpose.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
As I've accurately noted in the past our "laws of property" are based upon "title" created under the divine right of kings as opposed to being based upon the "natural right of property" as argued by John Locke. While, in many cases, "title" does correspond to a "right of property" that is by coincidence and not intent.
Compensation relates to a "right of property" but is controlled by statutory laws unrelated to the "right of property" of the person. Our statutory laws related to compensation allow the violations of the "natural (inalienable) right of property" in the United States currently.
In it's enumerated primary role of "protecting" our inalienable rights, according to the Declaration of Independence, does not our government also have an obligation to mitigate the effects of the violations of our "Inalienable (natural) Right of Property" when it occurs?
Government welfare assistance is the mitigation of the violation of the "Inalienable (Natural) Right of Property" of the person that the Declaration of Independence establishes as being a primary role of our government to protect.
Of note we can change our "compensation" laws so that there are no violations of the "Inalienable (Natural) Right of Property" of the person but then the necessity for the welfare assistance becomes a moot issue as it's not required because such a change ends poverty (at least for the workers and their dependents in America).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 14, 2015 19:18:42 GMT
It is simply not a proper function of the US government to ensure that each individual in the US "receive enough in compensation from employment to live on." That is the obligation of each individual; and if he (or she) is physically or mentally unable to do so, then it is the proper function of private charities to address that.
How about I address this from an "American" political ideology standpoint. The following two lines from the Declaration of Independence establish that our government is responsible for protectiong our inalienable (unalienable) rights. That is it's purpose.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
As I've accurately noted in the past our "laws of property" are based upon "title" created under the divine right of kings as opposed to being based upon the "natural right of property" as argued by John Locke. While, in many cases, "title" does correspond to a "right of property" that is by coincidence and not intent.
Compensation relates to a "right of property" but is controlled by statutory laws unrelated to the "right of property" of the person. Our statutory laws related to compensation allow the violations of the "natural (inalienable) right of property" in the United States currently.
In it's enumerated primary role of "protecting" our inalienable rights, according to the Declaration of Independence, does not our government also have an obligation to mitigate the effects of the violations of our "Inalienable (natural) Right of Property" when it occurs?
Government welfare assistance is the mitigation of the violation of the "Inalienable (Natural) Right of Property" of the person that the Declaration of Independence establishes as being a primary role of our government to protect.
Of note we can change our "compensation" laws so that there are no violations of the "Inalienable (Natural) Right of Property" of the person but then the necessity for the welfare assistance becomes a moot issue as it's not required because such a change ends poverty (at least for the workers and their dependents in America).
As usual, you quote some vague words from the Declaration of Independence (or, alternatively, from John Locke), while entirely ignoring the US Constitution. And I am aware of no constitutional edict against the ownership of private property; or even any requirement as regarding an improvement of the land. Are you? I have quoted the words of James Madison ("Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government"), and you have chosen to ignore it. During the late 1960s and early '70s, there were two distinct countercultures in the US: There were the hippies; and there were the revolutionaries. The revolutionaries, for the most part, were sophomore Maoists and Trotskyites. Your own political philosophy seems a bit better developed than theirs was. But it is just as much a part of the hard left. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 15, 2015 12:05:15 GMT
How about I address this from an "American" political ideology standpoint. The following two lines from the Declaration of Independence establish that our government is responsible for protectiong our inalienable (unalienable) rights. That is it's purpose.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
As I've accurately noted in the past our "laws of property" are based upon "title" created under the divine right of kings as opposed to being based upon the "natural right of property" as argued by John Locke. While, in many cases, "title" does correspond to a "right of property" that is by coincidence and not intent.
Compensation relates to a "right of property" but is controlled by statutory laws unrelated to the "right of property" of the person. Our statutory laws related to compensation allow the violations of the "natural (inalienable) right of property" in the United States currently.
In it's enumerated primary role of "protecting" our inalienable rights, according to the Declaration of Independence, does not our government also have an obligation to mitigate the effects of the violations of our "Inalienable (natural) Right of Property" when it occurs?
Government welfare assistance is the mitigation of the violation of the "Inalienable (Natural) Right of Property" of the person that the Declaration of Independence establishes as being a primary role of our government to protect.
Of note we can change our "compensation" laws so that there are no violations of the "Inalienable (Natural) Right of Property" of the person but then the necessity for the welfare assistance becomes a moot issue as it's not required because such a change ends poverty (at least for the workers and their dependents in America).
As usual, you quote some vague words from the Declaration of Independence (or, alternatively, from John Locke), while entirely ignoring the US Constitution. And I am aware of no constitutional edict against the ownership of private property; or even any requirement as regarding an improvement of the land. Are you? I have quoted the words of James Madison ("Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government"), and you have chosen to ignore it. During the late 1960s and early '70s, there were two distinct countercultures in the US: There were the hippies; and there were the revolutionaries. The revolutionaries, for the most part, were sophomore Maoists and Trotskyites. Your own political philosophy seems a bit better developed than theirs was. But it is just as much a part of the hard left.
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The "Inalienable (Natural) Right of Property" is protected by the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution.
I'm not arguing with James Madison's statement that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government" because the mitigation of a violation of an "Inalienable Right" is not charity. If all workers received adequate compensation to provide for their "support and comfort" based upon their labour, which Locke's arguments establish as a "natural right" of the person, then virtually all government funding for welfare disappears. Even Social Security and Medicare would no longer exist as "compensation for employment" would include provisions for the time when a person becomes too old to work.
Charity addresses those incapable of working and not those that have a "Natural (Inalienable) Right of support and comfort" established by their labour.
|
|
