General discussion

Locked

Individual Liberty in America - Is it a thing of the past?

By maxwell edison ·
.
My premise is this: In the United States of America, both by design and as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, one person does not have the power, the freedom, the prerogative, etc., to infringe on the rights -- i.e. the individual liberty -- of another person. And, by definition and extension, the government of the United States (a government of the people, by the people, and for the people) also does not have the license, the authority, the prerogative, etc., to infringe on the rights of an individual person. And one individual may not use the vehicle of government to exercise and propagate such infringement on another. Moreover, it is the primary role and responsibility of government to protect that right to individual liberty, not infringe upon it.

Do you agree or disagree with my stated premise?

If you disagree, will you please share with us your reasoning? And if you disagree, will you please support your assertions within the constitutional structure of the United States?

If you agree with the established premise, do you then agree with the following conclusion.

1. Taking a dollar from the person who earned it, so it can be given to a person who did not earn it, is tantamount to infringing on the individual liberties of that person who earned it; it is infringing on the rights of that person who earned it; and it should be abolished in the United States of America, as there is no intended Constitutional authority to legitimize it, nor has there been a Constitutional amendment passed that would specifically allow it.

And before you cite the "general welfare" clause, consider the words of the person who wrote them, James Madison, and the people who agreed with and/or approved of them, as they were intended within the context of defining the powers of government -- i.e. the Constitution of the United States.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
--James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-- George Washington

My conclusion:

No, I don't think it would be a realistic expectation to cut-off all transfer of wealth programs overnight. Moreover, to attempt such a thing would be political suicide for anyone attempting to advance such an agenda. However, the dialogue must change; the expectations much change -- expectations of both government and self; and we need to start turning back the clock to a time when the notion of protecting individual liberty in America trumped any and all collectivist desires.

And then let's consider property rights........or more accurately, how they have been taken away as well.

More to come.....

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

384 total posts (Page 1 of 39)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I find myself in agreement

by jdclyde In reply to Individual Liberty in Ame ...

and I am sure that comes as no suprise to anyone who has ever read any discussion I have been in regardings this topic.

I am big on personal responsiblity. It seems too many people find it easier to cry that they are a victom and collect a check.

I also see a lot of the problem is that subculture is allowed to flurish and be glamorized. When you have drug dealers/rap "artists" set up as role models, there is a big problem.

The educational system also needs to be overhauled, not just mended here or there. This is run by the Teachers Union, a DEMOCRAT run group. The only way our educational system could be as bad as it is and still resist reform is if it is that way on purpose. If we expect less and less out of students so they can't get gainfully employed after graduation (provided they make it that far) then you are setting these people up to fail. This is done to create a peasent class that will be subservient to who ever will GIVE them money to live.

In a gift society people gain power buy giving more to people than anyone else. If the people are self-reliant then they aren't interested in trading power for their own money back.

I did notice as regards to property rights, all of a sudden when the courts SHOW how nuts they are "it isn't a matter of Right or Left". Bull it isn't.

Government should be there to keep the boarders safe, make me a few nice roads, and stay out of my way so I can succeed or fail depending on my efforts or lack of.

Collapse -

Not again

by Oz_Media In reply to Individual Liberty in Ame ...

New title same issue.

Collapse -

I would just like to say brrrrreeep...I would just like to say brrrreeep...

by ippirate In reply to Not again

I would just like to say brrreeep..

"(*#%& @(# *%&^^ %#"

click CLICK Clack click

I would just like to say......
that I am highly opposed to the current methodology utilized in Washington in which I am taxed so that my money can be transferred to someone without. No, I have no a realistic answer and each time that I am pressed on this issue I will be sure to become hostile and attempt to discredit my opponents in an attempt to hide my own ineptitude and lack of profitable consideration as it pertains to the issue. I do this because I have little to know interest in actually attempting to promote a solution, it is far easier for me to whine about it and play the part of the victim. My name is Max Ed, please excuse my inferiority complex, Oh, and I just want my money dirtbag, get a job.

Oz, just let him sing his mantra. Really, if you ignore it, it'll stop itching. Besides, he will never get beyond his premise. He has been posting it for ages now. A solution would be nice but he would have to get his spine out of that knot first.

Cheers!

Collapse -

Typical Disingenuous Reply

by maxwell edison In reply to I would just like to say ...

.
1. Instead of addressing the issue and answering my questions, you chose to attack me (while saying that I will only attack others?), side-stepping the core issue on which my opinion is based.

2. You resorted to the usual -- and predictable -- ploy of lumping everyone who is on the receiving end of such transfer of wealth programs as being "without". That's a grossly exaggerated suggestion. Did you know, for example, that Warren Buffet (and millions like him, albeit not quite as wealthy) is the beneficiary of various transfer of wealth programs? That means that some poor schmuck who's making $15 an hour, or $12 an hour, or $10 an hour, or even $7 an hour, is having money taken out of his paycheck each and every month so that it can be paid to Warren Buffet, and others like him, as some sort of payment for some sort of program. And the cost of his goods and services is higher so that even more taxes can be collected, only to be transferred to Warren Buffet, and others like him -- including Ted Kennedy, the "champion" of the little guy?

3. Speaking of Warren Buffet, if people followed his methods of providing for their own retirement, they would do much better for themselves than what the current Social Security program provides -- even the guy making 10 bucks an hour.

4. You assume that I have no solutions. You assume incorrectly. And you must be resistant, for some reason, to discuss those solutions in a reasonable manner. One of my solutions, for example, would include making all income under a certain amount free from all taxes of any kind whatsoever -- federal taxes, social security taxes, state taxes AND sales taxes. (And at this point in time, that amount would be around $27,000 per year.) The way the current system works today, especially with social security taxes and sales taxes, it makes the deck stacked against the little guy, because a bigger percentage of his income is taken away every year in the form of taxes. So if a guy makes $25,000 to $30,000 per year, I would suggest that he pay NO TAXES AT ALL of any kind. And yes, I could discuss this plan in-depth and in-detail, if you would care to have some constructive dialogue on the subject. (And this really is a great plan -- at least it's a good start.)

5. You attempt to give the impression that I'm taking my position for a self-serving reason. See the above point to dispel that false notion.

6. Moreover, I'm taking this position because I feel it's in the best interest of America. Did you know that since the 1930s, the percentage of people receiving some sort of benefits as compared to the people paying into "the system" to pay for those benefits, has increased steadily year after year? This percentage of increase also applies to the amount of money being paid out versus the amount of money paid in. So regardless of how you look at it, it's only a matter of time before there are more takers than givers. What happens to your personal budget and financial state when you consistently spend more than you earn? And what kind of future are you providing for yourself? And what kind of future does that mean for America after we are dead and gone? Environmentalists claim to act only as stewards of the Earth. I wonder why you can't consider that some people might also want to be stewards of the idea that our forefathers called America?

7. You assume that being made dependent on someone, or some system, is being compassionate. To the contrary, I suggest to you that it's cruel to make people dependent, and that the compassionate thing to do is to encourage self-sufficiency and self-responsibility. Perhaps you're raising your kids by teaching them to become dependent on government, which in reality means that they'll be dependent on other people; but I choose to raise my kids teaching them to be self-sufficient, and to avoid being a burden on society -- and by definition, on others.

8. You avoid discussing the intent of the Constitution. Perhaps you don't understand it enough to discuss it. And perhaps that's part of the problem.

Collapse -

Correction...non-directed

by ippirate In reply to Typical Disingenuous Repl ...

In an effort to assist you in your limited ability to grasp this finer point of conversation, please allow me to direct you to the small fact that I was not responding to you. If you will, notice that the thread marker arising from my post attaches immediately to Oz's and not your's. This means that I was commenting to Oz, who, I notice, you haven't found the gumption to respond to, only mine. Perhaps that detail escapes you.

Now, in later responses I will address the remainder of your ignorant and superficial post. Please take note that I will be primarily focusing on your asinine assumptions. Humorous, you raise several issues that I haven't said a word about, could this mean that your soft belly is already showing? Fine and well, we will see. For your own benefit, it would be to you advantage to go back and study the questions and points that I put forth to you the last time that we went around about this topic.
Of course, I fully expect you to shirk them again, just as you have before, but we will see.

All the same, thank you for reinforcing my statement concerning you and smear tactics, I hear that MoveOn.org is hiring that skillset. Of course, that would mean that you would have to climb out of that Republican blanky you snuggle into each night. That's just as well, you wouldn't be missed, most of us are sick of toting your dead weight.
All the same, I'll reply as I get time. I fully expect you to begin your diatribe now on how I always act and what I do, those followed with the threat to take your ball and go play with someone that doesn't challenge you to qualify and justify the half-wit spurge you pour on the rest of us. Of course, perhaps this time you'll actually set a record and disappear before it even gets going. It's okay to run away max, I'm getting quite used to it, that's why I didn't bother responding to your post to begin with. Ooops, gotta go, I think I hear the Reds comin' Pa!

Collapse -

What a contempt-filled message

by maxwell edison In reply to Correction...non-directed

.
I must have pushed a few buttons.

Collapse -

Or as I like to say...

by Absolutely In reply to What a contempt-filled me ...

"Must have hit it pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that, eh Chewie?"

Han Solo, Episode # who cares?

Collapse -

Do you also like to say...

by ippirate In reply to Or as I like to say...

Oblique?

Not that it matters. If you care to fall in line with max's ignorant assumptions and panicked attacks then by all means, align yourself with him. He has done exactly what I said he would.

And to reveal the mystery for you, it was episode 5, Empire. And the comment was to luke, not chewB.

BTW, if you would like to actually get a relative grip on my political and governmental notions, perhaps you should read my post at the bottom of the thread. Then you could have it straight from the horse's mouth rather than relying upon the paranoid reactions of max.

Collapse -

I have begun reading your post at the bottom.

by Absolutely In reply to Or as I like to say...

It is more interesting than I would have expected, based on what I could not discern of your actual opinions on the 5-word health care thread. Actually, I'm very curious what you have to say below. Completeness is important, and if we agree that the Republican is actually soft on their core political values we may yet find common ground!

Collapse -

max's ignorant assumptions and panicked attacks?

by maxwell edison In reply to Or as I like to say...

.
Please point to, what you consider, "ignorant assumptions".

And

Please point to, in this discussion, "panicked attacks" directed at you.

Back to Community Forum
384 total posts (Page 1 of 39)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums