good ideas don't require government force

[AntonToo]

good ideas don't require government force

You don't think taxation or police are good ideas?

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the common defense and general welfare, means to defend and stabilize our economy to meet any current exigency.

No it doesn’t

Yes, it does. There are no excuses in the federal doctrine; only in the republican doctrine.

Different subjects

Providing for the common defense and general welfare, means to defend and stabilize our economy to meet any current exigency.

Among many, many other things

There are no excuses in the federal doctrine; only in the republican doctrine.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In the House each state has the number the number of representatives is corresponding with the population of that state.

So, Wyoming voters' votes are not any more powerful than votes of those in California or New York.

If number of senators were allocated the same way, there would be no need for the Senate.

And America would not be a Republic.

I think they were referring to the Electoral College. A vote in Wyoming is worth 3 times the vote of a person in Cali or Ny


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So, are you saying that Wyoming abuses the fact that they are a state with small population, i.e. minority?

The Electoral College assures that even 'minority' states have a voice.

Kind of like affirmative action.

Very much unlike AA. In practical terms the money and time spent in small states impacts elections, there is much talk that Trump's election was an accident since he lost the popular vote - nationwide - by millions, and won three states by less than 2% of the entire vote.

The same case can be made for Congressional Districts; when gerrymandering created one party dominance as money was poured into these enclaves to make a safe harbor for a parties incumbent and limit the ability of the other party to win.

We need to reform our elections so we can never again be dominated by one party, one ideology and lead by an inept, incompetent and mendacious President.

I don't think it'll ever happen. But yes all states should allocate their EV as Maine and Neb do. It would preserve the "weight" given to smaller states while also allowing every voter to have his/her will more accurately counted.

But the logical fault of the OP is its abstract nature. Basque no doubt would argue Obamacare's mandate is "socialist social engineering depriving individual choice." Yet in the "real world," there is no "real" consequence for not having private insurance if one is not already on Medicaid or medicare. Because the cost of treatment was passed on to those with insurance, even if the non-insured ended up in bankruptcy where he/she could discharge medical debt. We can't have true freedom of choice without true unfettered consequences for actions.

What elections come down to is money. The issues in this age of technology could create an informed voter, but the volume of conflicting ideas, alternative facts, lies, half-truths, rumors, innuendos and character assassinations confuses even the most sophisticated and curious person.

And sadly, this is used by the power elites (pols, global corporations, Wall Street , brokers and the very well off) to influence the voters with talking points and 30-second radio and TV ads.

It's odd too that the current iteration of conservatives whine about people not being personally responsible, and then attack Obamacare for making people pay for their own subsidized health care. Such hypocrisy irks me.

Because there are also only two political parties. They don't want to tell you their positions, because a position will be positive to one and negative to another.

PR allows more parties which have stronger view points and will campaign on those view points.

 

[dblack]

good ideas don't require government force

You don't think taxation or police are good ideas?

I don't think government should be used to force "good ideas" on people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Those who feel that individuals aren't equal, can't claim to be defenders of the people, like the US elections where people in Wyoming get a vote 3 times as powerful as those in California or Texas.

In the House each state has the number the number of representatives is corresponding with the population of that state.

So, Wyoming voters' votes are not any more powerful than votes of those in California or New York.

If number of senators were allocated the same way, there would be no need for the Senate.

And America would not be a Republic.

I think they were referring to the Electoral College. A vote in Wyoming is worth 3 times the vote of a person in Cali or Ny


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So, are you saying that Wyoming abuses the fact that they are a state with small population, i.e. minority?

The Electoral College assures that even 'minority' states have a voice.

Kind of like affirmative action.

Very much unlike AA. In practical terms the money and time spent in small states impacts elections, there is much talk that Trump's election was an accident since he lost the popular vote - nationwide - by millions, and won three states by less than 2% of the entire vote.

The same case can be made for Congressional Districts; when gerrymandering created one party dominance as money was poured into these enclaves to make a safe harbor for a parties incumbent and limit the ability of the other party to win.

We need to reform our elections so we can never again be dominated by one party, one ideology and lead by an inept, incompetent and mendacious President.

"We need to reform our elections so we can never again be dominated by one party, one ideology and lead by an inept, incompetent and mendacious President"

Translation: " I'm still butt hurt that Hillary couldn't win the election Constitutionally so we need to fix it so that Cali and New York can decide everything. "

Not the way it works Willy.

Translation: I read something somewhere in some magazine, I didn't really understand it but think it's a good way at fighting against things I don't understand. beep beep.

Wouldn't you like to have A REAL CHOICE when you go to the polls?

In Hong Kong the British arranged for them to have Democracy for 50 years. China has basically said you can vote for whoever you like, as long as this person is one of the three picks Beijing has chosen.

Some say it's not democracy when you can only choose from three pro-Beijing people.

But they got THREE people to choose from.

In the US it's only TWO.

In Germany you can choose from loads.

 

[bripat9643]

To the "Left" "Provide for the General Welfare" means having the Government pay for everything they want.

unlike the right wing; who also ask for a tax break.

providing for the general welfare engenders a positive multiplier effect and helps us achieve a potential, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

providing for the general warfare, only engenders Hellish conditions on Earth, and helps the rich get richer faster.

Is it wrong to Tax the Rich, into Heaven?

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the People, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the People. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

I know, it's a CRIME that so many want to keep more of their own money. Selfish bastards.

Some do not want to contribute to the society from which they benefit

Government isn't society, and I don't benefit one iota from government.

We the People created it to form a more perfect union

That doesn't alter what I said. Government isn't society, and I don't benefit one iota from government.

 

[bripat9643]

good ideas don't require government force

You don't think taxation or police are good ideas?

Nope. Police spend most of their time generating revenue for the government, rather than protecting me from criminals.

 

[frigidweirdo]

unlike the right wing; who also ask for a tax break.

providing for the general welfare engenders a positive multiplier effect and helps us achieve a potential, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

providing for the general warfare, only engenders Hellish conditions on Earth, and helps the rich get richer faster.

Is it wrong to Tax the Rich, into Heaven?

I know, it's a CRIME that so many want to keep more of their own money. Selfish bastards.

Some do not want to contribute to the society from which they benefit

Government isn't society, and I don't benefit one iota from government.

We the People created it to form a more perfect union

That doesn't alter what I said. Government isn't society, and I don't benefit one iota from government.

That's such a ridiculous thing to say.

You only need to look around the world to see the difference a government makes in a person's life.

Somalia. If you were born in Somalia you would not have benefited as much as you do in America.

I could give hundreds of examples of how your life would have benefited from being born in a richer country than a poorer country.

 

[bripat9643]

I know, it's a CRIME that so many want to keep more of their own money. Selfish bastards.

Some do not want to contribute to the society from which they benefit

Government isn't society, and I don't benefit one iota from government.

We the People created it to form a more perfect union

That doesn't alter what I said. Government isn't society, and I don't benefit one iota from government.

That's such a ridiculous thing to say.

You only need to look around the world to see the difference a government makes in a person's life.

Somalia. If you were born in Somalia you would not have benefited as much as you do in America.

I could give hundreds of examples of how your life would have benefited from being born in a richer country than a poorer country.

Only the ignorant believe Somalia doesn't have government. It has lot's of governments. It has hundreds of petty tyrants each with his own government.

 

[rightwinger]

unlike the right wing; who also ask for a tax break.

providing for the general welfare engenders a positive multiplier effect and helps us achieve a potential, Commune of Heaven on Earth.

providing for the general warfare, only engenders Hellish conditions on Earth, and helps the rich get richer faster.

Is it wrong to Tax the Rich, into Heaven?

I know, it's a CRIME that so many want to keep more of their own money. Selfish bastards.

Some do not want to contribute to the society from which they benefit

Government isn't society, and I don't benefit one iota from government.

We the People created it to form a more perfect union

That doesn't alter what I said. Government isn't society, and I don't benefit one iota from government.

Sure you don’t finger boy

 

[sparky]

I'll tell you what the gub'mit can't enforce , but would be good to see

Plain old civility ,social graces

Little things like please, thank you, excuse me

Opening doors for 'little 'ol ladies, or allowing them in line in front of you

letting someone use the crosswalk that's waiting.....

~S~

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Like many others, you fail to understand.

The government does not force you to "NOT" rob a bank. IT punishes you AFTER the fact.

No law and no threat of force will prevent people from acting poorly.

You are incorrect, the threat of going to jail if you rob a bank prevents most people from robbing the bank.

There is only ONE thing that keeps a person acting within the limits of the law. That is their own innate sense of right and wrong.

We pull up to a stop light that is red, and after looking both ways, remain until it turns green.

Why? We understand the inherent dangers of crossing against a red light and resolve to avoid the risk. Not because in the moment it is unsafe, but because it sets a pattern of ignoring what is right and when we are distracted, make fatal mistakes in assuming that it is safe.

By this notion we do not need speed limits, as people would drive at a safe speed without them due to our own innate sense of right and wrong. Yet, even with the threat of punishment and knowing that it is dangerous, a certain percent of the population chooses to speed.

We have slower speed imts in our residential areas than our highways to keep the people that live in them safe, yet people still choose to go 3 times the posted speed limit in these areas, where is their their own innate sense of right and wrong?

I say the threat of punishment is involved in keeping a person acting within the limits of the law.

 

[sparky]

said threat often more powerful than the execution.....~S~

 

[AntonToo]

good ideas don't require government force

You don't think taxation or police are good ideas?

Nope. Police spend most of their time generating revenue for the government, rather than protecting me from criminals.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

said threat often more powerful than the execution.....~S~

Very true. The threat of a ticket keeps me from going 90 on the highway

 

[Darkwind]

Like many others, you fail to understand.

The government does not force you to "NOT" rob a bank. IT punishes you AFTER the fact.

No law and no threat of force will prevent people from acting poorly.

You are incorrect, the threat of going to jail if you rob a bank prevents most people from robbing the bank.

There is only ONE thing that keeps a person acting within the limits of the law. That is their own innate sense of right and wrong.

We pull up to a stop light that is red, and after looking both ways, remain until it turns green.

Why? We understand the inherent dangers of crossing against a red light and resolve to avoid the risk. Not because in the moment it is unsafe, but because it sets a pattern of ignoring what is right and when we are distracted, make fatal mistakes in assuming that it is safe.

By this notion we do not need speed limits, as people would drive at a safe speed without them due to our own innate sense of right and wrong. Yet, even with the threat of punishment and knowing that it is dangerous, a certain percent of the population chooses to speed.

We have slower speed imts in our residential areas than our highways to keep the people that live in them safe, yet people still choose to go 3 times the posted speed limit in these areas, where is their their own innate sense of right and wrong?

I say the threat of punishment is involved in keeping a person acting within the limits of the law.

I say that any law, regardless of its intent, only works on those who think that the law is just

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Like many others, you fail to understand.

The government does not force you to "NOT" rob a bank. IT punishes you AFTER the fact.

No law and no threat of force will prevent people from acting poorly.

You are incorrect, the threat of going to jail if you rob a bank prevents most people from robbing the bank.

There is only ONE thing that keeps a person acting within the limits of the law. That is their own innate sense of right and wrong.

We pull up to a stop light that is red, and after looking both ways, remain until it turns green.

Why? We understand the inherent dangers of crossing against a red light and resolve to avoid the risk. Not because in the moment it is unsafe, but because it sets a pattern of ignoring what is right and when we are distracted, make fatal mistakes in assuming that it is safe.

By this notion we do not need speed limits, as people would drive at a safe speed without them due to our own innate sense of right and wrong. Yet, even with the threat of punishment and knowing that it is dangerous, a certain percent of the population chooses to speed.

We have slower speed imts in our residential areas than our highways to keep the people that live in them safe, yet people still choose to go 3 times the posted speed limit in these areas, where is their their own innate sense of right and wrong?

I say the threat of punishment is involved in keeping a person acting within the limits of the law.

I say that any law, regardless of its intent, only works on those who think that the law is just

I disagree. You seem to hold mankind in a much higher regard than I do

I think if the threat of punishment was not there we would see a lot more actions that are now against the law.

I know a lot of people that think our tax system is unjust and would cheat on their taxes if not for the fear of getting caught.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Driving on State-owned, public roads is illegal. One must have permission (license) to use those roads. On those State-owned roads, a licensed driver must obey the rules.

Comparing traffic laws to anything else is incongruent. There is no right to drive on State roads.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Driving on State-owned, public roads is illegal. One must have permission (license) to use those roads. On those State-owned roads, a licensed driver must obey the rules.

Comparing traffic laws to anything else is incongruent. There is no right to drive on State roads.

How is that any different from the laws against robbing a bank?

There is no right to keep you money safe in a bank, it is a convenience that is offered by a the bank.