alt.education

"Joe Irvin" wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
>news:r2ebs399ojhi407s3vnghdqnold43c4qfr@4ax.com...
>> "Joe Irvin" wrote:
>>>> Or do you think we could finance the DoD without anyone paying taxes
>>>> (or limiting those taxes to the excise taxes that were all the
>>>> founders had?)
>>>
>>>Defence is a constitutional obligation of the government.
>>
>> Anything the elected representatives of "we the people" decide is a
>> constitutional obligation, that is not expressly forbidden by the
>> Federal constitution, might be a constitutional obligation of the
>> state government. Many of the things you dislike are in fact
>> constitutional obligations of state governments.
>
>I have no problem with what states do as far as free anything and everything
>... it just that states citizens have to pay for it.

We all pay for it. We are all interdependent.

>> Personally I weight "provide for the common defense" and "promote the
>> general welfare" to be equal constitutional obligations.
>
>If the Constitution is to mean anything we should try and understand what
>the Framers were trying to say.

We should understand what "We the people" understand it to say. The
Framers are dead. Their opinion has relevance but is not
deterministic, especially since the Civil War placed a big kibosh on
states rights as some of the founders probably saw them (e.g.
Jefferson)

>Madison said

Madison and his predecessors took a limited view of the Constitution,
though even Jefferson completed the Louisiana Purchase, and the Bank
of the United States was formed. Whatever the Founders may have
thought, it quickly proved necessary to have the Federal government
exercise more power. That is now history. Live with it.

>>>> For one thing, we can't force them to do so, and the kids need to eat.
>>>
>>>The govt can cut benefits.
>>
>> No, it can't. The elected representatives of "we the people" would
>> have to make that decision, and "we the people" would vote them out of
>> office if they tried, so they won't.
>
>So as long as we the people can out vote the evil rich, they are free to
>take as much from the evil rich as they need/want, no matter how
>irresponsible they are?

Yep.

>Wow, so that is what the Framers were trying to do.?

Why should I care? That is reality. "Right" and "wrong" are whatever
"we the people" decide them to be.

>>>nothing wrong with using the force of govt
>>>to take from some to give to others who have to do nothing but breath?
>>
>> Nope.
>
>So you are for subsidizing bad/destructive behavior by taking money from
>productive people? There needs and lifestyles are unimportant?

Their needs are the same as everyone else's. All men are created
equal, and all that.

>> (You realize that the moment you mention "force of government" I
>> classify you as a loonytoonian extremist ideologue who has nothing
>> better to do than complain, and try to get Ron Paul elected dogcatcher
>> or whatever he might get enough votes for).
>
>Are you saying the govt doesn't have the power to use force?

I mean that anyone who talks about government in terms of "force" has
already lost the argument as far as I am concerned. You couldn't
possibly convince me of anything, because I reject the premise that
government uses "force" in any way like what is implied by your usage
of the word.

Or if you prefer, I view the marketplace as being just as coercive as
the government.

>Whats so extreme

The ideology, which I utterly reject.

>> They have the money for no other reason that the government provided
>> them with the infrastructure and the stable society in which to
>> acquire it.
>
>Ok then what do the wards of the fed govt who are getting the money ... what
>do they owe and who do they owe it too.

Whoever "we the people" say.

>Its a one sided affair with you
>only the wealthy owe, the rest are to be taken care as wards of the govt ...
>that fairness?

Life isn't fair.

>Anyone who doesn't believe in fairness is a 'looneytoonian extremist ideologue????

Anyone who believes in YOUR concept of fairness is.

>> There is no real property ownership without some sort of government.
>
>So what? ... that is just as much for the wards of govt as it is for
>productive people.

It means that we are all "wards of the government" including the rich.

>> "We the people" have so decided.
>
>In this case whats the difference in 'we the people' and a dictator
>exploiting the wealthy? You believe in this class warfare?

It isn't warfare unless the bad guys resist their obligations.

>> You don't, but "we the people" apparently do, because they do
>> precisely that.
>
>Do you think it equitable?

The root of "equitable" is "equal". Excessive wealth is not
equitable.

>>>What is your reasoning for using the force of govt to support good strong
>>>healthy people who don't want to support themselves and families but want
>>>the luxuries ... irresponsible people.
>>
>> If "we the people" vote for it, then it is the law. I support rule by
>> law.
>
>You were right at home with slavery then because it was the law.

I wasn't there.

I probably would have gone along if I had lived in the South, and I
wouldn't have been a crusader if I had lived in the North.

>If everyone thought that, we would still have slavery today.

Perhaps.

>Sometimes you have to point out and stand up for the inequity of the law when it favors
>certain people or classes of people.

There is only one class of people.

You see a poor person. There but for the Grace of God, goes Bill
Gates.

>>>Why should the govt support them
>>>if they have the means to have most of the things that other productive
>>>people have.
>>
>> Because "we the people" have so decided.
>
>Good reason, a dictator decides to exploit people and its ok?

It is reality.

A capitalist decides to exploit people and its ok?

It is reality.

>> I'm not concerned for what the Framers might or might not think. They
>> aren't "we the people" any more. They're dead.
>
>Why even pretend we go by the Framers Constitution then?

Rule of law requires that we respect precedent.

>Why not just have majority rule ... after all it would be the infalible we the people.

Because majority rule is NOT infallible. That is why we have the Bill
of Rights.

After we eliminate what is covered by the Bill of Rights, it makes no
real difference whether something is decided at the state level or at
the Federal level. The lines are drawn based on history and
tradition, but I don't think it matters that much - it is still "We
the people" deciding.

>>>So true, but the govt shouldn't support the ones who made the bad
>>>decisions
>>>or just don't want to support themselves, should it????
>>
>> If "we the people" so decide through our elected representatives, then
>> that is the way it "should be".
>
>So something you wouldn't do for yourself like making your neighbor support
>you because it would be illegal, its ok to get a gang together,

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.

>I'm sure it is as the govt can do
>no wrong as long as its exploiting the wealthy/productive.

"Wrong" is determined pragmatically. If it works, then it isn't
wrong. Usually we define arbitrarily that a violation of the
Constitution doesn't work. But even that has exceptions; Lincoln
violated the Constitution at times, but saved the Union.

>>>Kids are suffering because their parents screwed up ... we shouldn't
>>>subsidize this bad behavior.
>>
>> We aren't. We are subsidizing the kids.
>
>We are subsidizing the behavior or it wouldn't keep happening.

Yes it would. It happened just as much in the era of little
government, except that the poor and weak and uncompetitive died.
Especially if they happened to be non-white.

>So the jihadist are just a police problem ...

In Europe, yes.

>I guess it a weak police
>forces they have in Asia, Africa and Europe or this terrorist problem would
>be solved?

Precisely.

The areas where al Qaeda is strong in southern Afghanistan and in the
northern Pakistan tribal areas have essentially no police force. IF
there was a police force able to enforce the laws, there would be no
significant al Qaeda there. While Saddam wasn't in the least bit
admirable as a human being, he also didn't have terrorists doing
suicide bombs in Baghdad.

>> What about the non-jihadist Muslims that want sharia law. They are
>> the ones who are actually supporting it in the polls.
>
>I would like to see the poll that says the British, Dutch, French, German
>people would rather have sharia law?

There was reference to British Moslems. They were British as well as
Moslems.

>> There is no evidence that the two different systems are allowed to
>> conflict.
>
>Just two, sharia law makes women 2nd class citizens,

Not in Britain it doesn't.

>sharia law doesn't allow speaking against the Muslim religion ...

Not in Britain it doesn't.

>> That has to do with your xenophobic assumption that Islam necessarily
>> means all the worst things ever done by believers will prevail. If we
>> turn that around, then they have every reason to believe that everyone
>> in the West is a mass-murdering Crusader.
>
>That is whaat they believe, and you even admitted that when you gave the
>Bush quote about the war being a Crusade. They believe the west is the
>devil.

Historically, it is.

>>>> Law doesn't have beliefs.
>>>
>>>Its the jihadist believers in the law that are the problem.
>>
>> Not really.
>
>Not really, open up the paper ... almost all over the world these terrorist
>are causing trouble.

They don't believe in the law.

>>>Why, sharia law covers all aspects of a Muslims life.
>>
>> Not in a society where Muslims are a minority.
>
>That is why they want to get sharia law accepted.

Your evidence is lacking.

>>>They do not riot when someone makes fun of their religion, they don't strap
>>>on bombs and blow up people.
>>
>> Neither do most Muslims.
>
>Enough of them do it that its a problem.

Not here, and not in Britain, and sharia courts wouldn't change that
fact in the least.

>Are you saying there is not a problem with terrorism.

Yes, there is. But it is terrorism that is the problem, not Islam.

>>>Who is casting stones at Muslims ...
>>
>> You.
>
>No, I'm talking about the radicals and jihadists.

You are one. You are as radically anti-Islam as they are anti-West.
And your attitude is indistinguishable from that of a Crusader.

lojbab