At 12/1/12 02:10 AM, poxpower wrote:
They're largely doing better than the US
No
You know, there is such a thing as abusing social nets. More isn't always better. But none is far worse than some, which is the entire crux of the argument.
More is ALWAYS worse. The less you have the more potential for abuse.
FWIW, nowhere did I advocate a no safety net policy.
Just you? How so? What's preventing me from turning to crime? And mobs?
The community you chose not to join will arrest and/or kill you depending on the severity of the crime....which again, would be your own fault because you CHOSE to turn to crime, instead of joining the society.
Guess what else happens? I spread my filth everywhere, beg in the streets and pollute other people's stuff. Oh, you think you own this lake? No, sorry, that's where I dump my poo now because I don't feel like paying for sewage systems.
Exactly and you will be punished for your choice that infringes on other's rights. Property rights, in this case.
Again another point dumbass ultra libertarians don't get: You don't live in a little bubble where no one's actions but your own have any repercussion on your life.
That's exactly the point.
Yeah again this is the proposed libertarian mantra that is always fuzzy on when exactly it happens. You need SOME government of course! But how much? Don't ask for specifics!
No, libertarians don't want to abolish government. The specifics of which laws, etc that should be in place are right there in the constitution. Basically a libertarian calls for government only to protect against the infringements on rights of others.
Example: I should be fully allowed, by law to drink as smoke or possess as much pot as I want...the moment I infringe on someone else's personal property or rights in order to obtain it, then legal action should be taken against me. Get it, dunce?
Cops? Oh, yeah, probably. Courts? Roads? Infrastructure? Printing money? Erh... WHO KNOWS!
Those things are either A) in the constitution, or B) fall under that whole "general welfare" thing, or C) Funded/created/supported by the state.
All you really actually point out is bad policy and corruption and then generalize those things to mean that governments are bad and can't work, ignoring reality and examples of when it actually does, as with nationalized healthcare for instance.
Show me where nationalized healthcare works.
Somehow the USA has the "best in the world" yet no independent healthcare ranking organization places your dumb asses anywhere near the top. But republicans and libertarians sure love to tout how America is NUMBER ONE IN HEALTHCARE!
Like I said WE are the innovators in technology and medical procedures. There's a reason why medical students COME HERE to study. There's a reason why patients COME HERE for treatment.
Again that's not actually proposing what exactly the government has to spend money on. There's no "The government shall tax people to build roads" anywhere in there. Where did you figure that it's now the government's role to work on infrastructure?
Because it falls under the general welfare clause because no group or person is benefited at the cost of others. What the government can spend money on is right there in black and white. It's when you get progressives like George Bush's or FDR's courts into the mix that things are "interpreted" differently.
Again, you've yet to name any of those things besides "roads".
That's because there aren't any...or at least not very many. Many of the things that people deem as a federal responsibility, are meant to be handled by the state...you know that 10th amendment thing.
B) No where in the constitution does it say the government should do much of anything other than protect the border, print money, and work out trade deals with other nations. I don't see anything about social security, bailouts, or invading non-threatening countries in there.
Yeah and there was nothing about letting women vote or abolishing slavery either. Note also that it doesn't say you can print money since you have to pay in gold and silver. So really, you can only print so much, which, as it turns out, is a bad thing.
It's funny you bring this up because you're totally right. It was the governments at the time that prevented women from voting, and made black people count as 3/5 of a person. Those were laws passed by the government. It was the government who created that bondage :)
See this is why it's retarded to believe a piece of paper written over 2 centuries ago somehow has more wisdom than all of today's top economists, anthropologists, sociologists and scientists combined.
No one has proposed that. See, this is how retard Europeans misinterpret Americans :)
Please explain the constitutions flaws and how going against it benefits society. Because as I can tell, every time America goes against it's founding documents, people die, wars breakout, poverty levels rise, etc.
Any government program or law should stand on its own merits and not be judged on whether or not some crusty old dudes thought it was a good idea 100 years before horses were replaced by cars.
Agreed. Unfortunately, most of the programs you're deeming necessary or good, ARE being judged on their own merits. And those merits suck ass. Social Security, bankrupt. Medicare, bankrupt. Obamacare, bankrupts people.
Note that in the constitution it also says that the government has to maintain the post office and POSTAL ROADS, not just "roads" or bridges or railroads.
Mmhhhmm...and?
Wasn't Milton Friedman raving about how shitty the post office is? And if Ron Paul and his ilk as such literally constitutionalists, why are they always complaining that the post office is shit?
The post office IS shit. They are ALSO bankrupt. They lose packages. You know who is making record profits in that industry? UPS. Know who has leaps and bounds better service? UPS. Know who the post office turns to to deliver mail abroad? FedEx.
The mail industry is the PERFECT example of private sector companies out doing governments' (space travel, and automobiles are a couple others)
Guess that for the things they don't like, they don't really give a damn about the constitution do they?
Oh riiight....they want to abolish the post office *rolls eyes*
The constitution has been amended a bunch of times as well, like that time they banned alcohol. Whoops. Which version of the constitution is right exactly?
Amendements are totally legal, acceptable ways of changing laws to suit the times. The original constitution was never meant to be untouchable because they knew society would change. That's why there's a process to change the law. The only untouchable parts are the bill of rights.
Having said that, can you show me the Constitutional amendment for Obamacare, SS, Medicare, etc?
No one 250 years ago was so smart and progressive that they could write how to run a country today, neither socially nor economically.
Exactly. Hence why they created an...elastic, if you will, system that allowed evolution and change over time.