30 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesYou conservatives baffle me. You folks whine about big government, and how it encroaches on your freedoms. But....
are NOT property rights fundamentalists?
Is there anyone here who simply wants to make a case for reducing the size and scope of government without it becoming an argument about how all taxation amounts to "theft"?
the only ones I can think of are Hugh Glass and sh76. And maybe Whodey 😛
* Whenever there is a security issue, you want to send in GOVERNMENT troops to deal with the problem.
* Whenever there is a financial meltdown, you demand to know what the GOVERNMENT is doing to fix it.
* Whenever the crime rate rises, you demand your Federal, State and Local GOVERNMENTS do more to put these crimminals behind bars
* Whenever there is a hurricane disaster (aka Katrina) you openly ask why the GOVERNMENT is so slow in responding.
...and the list goes on. You folks want the GOVERNMENT to do many things, but at the same time become smaller, and stay out of your way. How are they supposed to do that? Are they supposed to vanish and materialize at your whim? Duhhhhh 😏
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat is why we started with a Constitution.
What if most of the shareholders disagree?
As an example, consider a Home Owners Association. An HOA can assess fees based on the votes of the homeowners, but it cannot assess an income tax, it normally cannot assess progressive taxation or fees, it normally cannot hand out welfare directly to its members, it cannot put caps on income, nor make rules about prescription medications its homeowners take. It is well understood that forms of governance exists that do not have absolute power over its constituents regardless of the majority's whims.
The minute we decide that it is our goal to be ruled by the fickle will of the masses is the minute we accept tyranny of the majority.
With or without the voters agreement, taking money and using it for wasteful programs that do more to buy votes than anything is just legalized theft from a moral perspective.
If we recognized our Constitution, we accept that the government has limited powers regardless of the majority (which can only be changed by the very difficult amendment process involving super-majorities of the states and congress).
Count me as one who recognize that having a government that collects taxes is better than not having a government. But the US government is currently trying to do too much. It is doing more than would be ideal for a free and prosperous people and even more than a plain reading of the Constitution allows.
31 Jul 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesYea, count me in.
are NOT property rights fundamentalists?
Is there anyone here who simply wants to make a case for reducing the size and scope of government without it becoming an argument about how all taxation amounts to "theft"?
the only ones I can think of are Hugh Glass and sh76. And maybe Whodey 😛
31 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotWe already have a fourth branch that ranges from the EPA to the Department of Education and an army of czars. Unfortunately, they are unelectable and unaccountable to the Amreican voter and soak up trillions of tax payer dollars annually.
the country needs a fourth branch. one that restricts funding of the other three. a branch of auditors.
It is my contention that the problem lies with the ever increasing power of the federal government. The engine for this was the federal income tax at the turn of the 20th century, so it stands to reason that this is the vehicle that got us where we are today.
So can the US turn back the clock? Unfortunately no. Right now I would settle for an amendment mandating that Congress have balanced budgets but I suspect this is probably a pipe dream. Neither party has an interest in it.
31 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeyIt's a funny state of affairs when a non-American like me has to point out to an American like you that the EPA and the Department of Education and the "czars" are all part of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, which is not "a fourth branch", but one of the regular three branches that also include the legislature and the judiciary.
We already have a fourth branch that ranges from the EPA to the Department of Education and an army of czars.
31 Jul 10
Originally posted by FMFYou don't think I know that? I was making a point which is that the Executive Branch has ballooned into a monster. If not, tell us how the other two branches have expanded equally.
It's a funny state of affairs when a non-American like me has to point out to an American like you that the EPA and the Department of Education and the "czars" are all part of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, which is not "a fourth branch", but one of the regular three branches that also include the legislature and the judiciary.
31 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeyWhat you were doing was asserting that A was B, when A is A, and then attacking A for being B, when A is A and there is no such thing as B. The point you were making is therefore lost, yet again, in a swirl of sterile fury and earnest misrepresentation. Do you claim that 'Czars' are NOT part of the executive branch? No. Have you made a joined-up political point by claiming there is some kind of "fourth branch"? No, not really. Most mainstream voters would have tuned out of your diatribe already. One wonders what kind of political creature you see yourself as. You are probably aiding and abetting the people you oppose.
You don't think I know that? I was making a point which is that the Executive Branch has ballooned into a monster.
31 Jul 10
Originally posted by FMFThe bottom line is that the federal government, specifically the executive branch, has usurped man of the power of the states. As a result, we now have the president of the United States deciding everything ranging from how your child is educated to what doctors you see. This is why the federal government has ballooned. In fact, his army of czars are necessary just to have an appearance of effective governance.
What you were doing was asserting that A was B, when A is A, and then attacking A for being B, when A is A and there is no such thing as B. The point you were making is therefore lost, yet again, in a swirl of sterile fury and earnest misrepresentation. Do you claim that 'Czars' are NOT part of the executive branch? No. Have you made a joined-up political point ...[text shortened]... al creature you see yourself as. You are probably aiding and abetting the people you oppose.