Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[Procrustes Stretched]

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

The argument is not what the law is. Or what SCOTUS rules.

The argument is what is and what is not social contract, what violates social contract, and what the people should do when that occurs, if anything. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs here.

I don't think they would at all. They were practical men and if they thought that was best for the country, they would have certainly implemented it. I think the big difference here is that we wouldn't hang the offenders.

Perhaps you think the social contract means the government does what you want. That seriously is not the case. The government needs to do its job and if the public is entirely happy about it, it probably is not doing its job.

I think absolutely the Constitution was intended to create a government that had its powers strictly limited, that was restricted to specific authority and was intended to have no authority beyond that assigned to it by the people. So in a sense, I do believe government was intended to do what the people wanted it to do. That was the social contract the people formed when they created the United States of America.

The reason I am certain that the Founders would have considered the government way out of line and illegally acting if it should dictate the kind of light bulbs or candles that the people would use is that they gave the government no authority to dictate how the people would live their lives in any regard.

And they gave the federal government no authority to confiscate labor or property from one citizen in order to transfer that to another:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “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, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)​

Remember we are not discussing the law of precedent or the law as it exists now. We are discussing social contract as it was intended and whether social contract has been violated or breached and what we should do about it.

Yes, we are discussing the social contract. But I am thinking we are not in agreement at to what that consists of. It is the job of the government to govern, not just attempt to make as many people happy as it can. Sometimes it means it will make people unhappy. The government that just follows wherever the people want to go is reneging on its obligations under the contract, because its job is to lead.

But I think the original intent was that the Constitution would allow the states to function effectively as one nation and secure the rights of the people and then leave the people strictly alone to govern themselves. The Founders wanted no king, no monarch, no dictator, no Pope, no totalitarian government of any sort that would govern the people. The Constitution was a social contract that created a government that was not given authority to govern the people but was restricted to specific functions assigned to it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The 'more perfect union' was to provide a means for the various states to function as one nation - to establish Justice was to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other that also ensured domestic tranquility. Providing the common defense also ensured domestic tranquitlity and secured the blessings of liberty--this was defined in the Declaration as unalienable rights among which were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no liberty when the federal government dictates to us what liberties we will and will not have while living our lives.

The Constitution is the law and I thought you wanted to talk about the social contract and not the law.

First, you are free to argue what you think the intent was. I am free to disagree, and I do. But ultimately it doesn't matter what the intent was. Those people are long dead and, to be honest, I don't care what their intent was. They had their turn and it is now our turn, our government, our contract and our responsibility. When we are dead the following generations will have their turn and, if they have any sense at all, won't give a damn what our intents were.

Second, your comment that no liberty exists if the government dictates what liberties we have is false on its face. You really don't want to argue that if you consider it for a moment. Basically, you are saying that if I can't murder someone then I have no liberty. All societies establish what liberties individuals may have, without exception. The citizen's end of the social contract is the agreement to accept limitations on their liberty in exchange for the benefits of living in the society.

Thumbs up on so many points

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, a social contract is embedded in the Constitution, and it is not based on libertarian principles.

another poor usage of English language terms. Nothing is embedded in the US Constitution

An incomplete sentence begins Dante's post. Dante does not grok connotation.

what the above quoted posts highlights is...
Jake does not grok context

Dante, you are not an expert on semantics, syntax, or diction. You pick at me because I corrected you on a point a few months ago. Tough, kid.

You are in the same boat as STTAB. I am not going to be your online friend. You have been told that enough times.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes, a social contract is embedded in the Constitution, and it is not based on libertarian principles.

another poor usage of English language terms. Nothing is embedded in the US Constitution

An incomplete sentence begins Dante's post. Dante does not grok connotation.

what the above quoted posts highlights is...
Jake does not grok context

Dante, you are not an expert on semantics, syntax, or diction. You pick at me because I corrected you on a point a few months ago. Tough, kid.

You are in the same boat as STTAB. I am not going to be your online friend. You have been told that enough times.

a few months ago?

Jakey, do you stay up at night whacking off while thinking about usmb? '

good gawd, your projections on what you imagine motivates others are priceless and creepy

can we get a mod here?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, a social contract is embedded in the Constitution, and it is not based on libertarian principles.

another poor usage of English language terms. Nothing is embedded in the US Constitution

An incomplete sentence begins Dante's post. Dante does not grok connotation.

what the above quoted posts highlights is...
Jake does not grok context

Dante, you are not an expert on semantics, syntax, or diction. You pick at me because I corrected you on a point a few months ago. Tough, kid.

You are in the same boat as STTAB. I am not going to be your online friend. You have been told that enough times.

a few months ago?

Jakey, do you stay up at night whacking off while thinking about usmb? '

good gawd, your projections on what you imagine motivates others are priceless and creepy

can we get a mod here?

Now your emotional angst rivals your lack of ability to respond effectively to the needs and interest of others.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

To be fair, your assumption is that liberty means the liberty to take liberty away, such as by killing people. That is incorrect. Liberty does not mean the liberty to take liberty away. You might as well define killing as bringing to life. It's a non-nonsensical definition meant to defend authority to take liberty away so as to "protect" people.

Here is an example of what I was saying.

If you don't have these terms worked out in advance, a conversation like this is much more difficult.

It would be better to put more reasonable examples in place.

Everything is relative and has to be kept in context.

Do you have liberty when you can speak your mind freely ?

Do you have liberty lost when you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre ?

Do you have liberty lost when you can't be critical of your boss ?

You asked, "do you have liberty when you can speak your mind freely?" Your question is unclear, ambiguous, and apparently designed to lead to a straw-man argument. All men have the god given right to speak their mind freely. This is a liberty that is inherent in all free men. This liberty is not the liberty to harm people with your speech.

Here is your straw-man: "Do you have liberty lost when you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre ?" Liberty is not the liberty to cause others harm, such as by killing people in a stampede. The phrase, liberty lost makes no sense. Because you never had the liberty to harm people, you have not lost liberty when you are told that you are not allowed to kill people by yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Here is another straw-man: "Do you have liberty lost when you can't be critical of your boss ?" Liberty is not the liberty to ignore rules. You are conflating ability to be stupid with god given rights. Your liberties are not limited at all when a rule of your employer says you can't harm your boss by being critical of your boss in a public way.

I am not taking a position as much as I am trying to get it out of the ethereal and down to earth.

My question was not designed to create a straw man.

Rather, it was intended to bring out just what you pointed out. Some would argue that yelling in a crowded theater is a right and that if people choose to stampede....well, tough. That isn't the the case.

When we say liberty, we are not saying totally unconstrained.

I think the same is true when it comes to government "protecting your liberty". As Jay points out, we give up some liberties to preserve others. Pure and simple. Government is intended to "protect" the remaining liberties that we chose not to give away.

The term liberty is not all-encompassing.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes, we are discussing the social contract. But I am thinking we are not in agreement at to what that consists of. It is the job of the government to govern, not just attempt to make as many people happy as it can. Sometimes it means it will make people unhappy. The government that just follows wherever the people want to go is reneging on its obligations under the contract, because its job is to lead.

I get a sense of this reading through the thread.

People or entities generally enter into a contract to get something in return for something.....

Those "something"s are spelled out in the contract.

Here is the preamble of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You can list those things out and discuss them one by one....but it is terms like liberty that can cause an issue.

John Jay said it well in Federalist 2:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

This is a clear description of a "contract". The problem is in the details of what rights were ceded and which were not.

Yes, it is the job of government to govern. But even that term becomes an issue. You can get into an entire discussion of positive rights and negative rights......and that alone would be a huge undertaking.

What does it mean to "govern".

Providing health care is not governing (and I am not saying our government provides health care).

Is preventing bis business from screwing you "governing" ? Or is putting the mechanism in place to prevent them from screwing you "governing".

It is answers to questions like these that create the debate because not everybody feels the same way.....

Certainly not everybody feels the same way. We are a representative democracy and I believe the technical term for that is "bloody mess". That does not change the purpose of government, which is to govern. That it is not easy matters not at all.

Is providing health care governing? Yep.
Preventing big business from screwing us? Yep
Establishing mechanisms to prevent...? Yep
It's all governing. And if the government officials refuse to deal with these issues because it's not popular then they aren't doing their job. Their job is to make the society work, not please people.

As you are aware, you'll get strong disagreement over some of these items.

I would argue that once you the role of government and the nature of the social contract worked out....you have the answers to all these issues (in theory). Getting people to abide is something else.

And then there is the scope of the contract.

Some don't want the federal government providing health care. But would be O.K. with states providing it. Maybe a county should provide it. There are pros and cons all the way around.

I think that many conservatives (including Foxfyr based on her posts) would argue for. The federal government was there to perform a limited function.....keep us safe and present a unified face to the world. The states would then run the individual shows.

I have heard that argument and I consider it wrong. The federal government clearly holds preeminence over the states under the Constitution. One of the purposes of the federal government was to limit the power of the states. This is why the authority to decide cases under the Constitution is left solely in then hands of the federal courts.

I'll leave you to argue that with others.

I was simply pointing out that you might want to make sure you understand the context in which Foxfyr is posting. As a conservative, she holds that position.

And as I have indicated, that is where the two of you appear to be in disagreement.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Their job is to make the society work, not please people.

And again, this begs the question.....

How will you know when society is "working" ?

Isn't that the heart of all arguments because not all have the same goals.

It was quite clear on another thread that someone feels libertarians are "unamerican" because they are willing to take away all social services.

While I don't agree with removal social services, I also don't agree that is unamerican. Voicing your POV is very much American.

And, apparently, to some "working" means no social programs.

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

 

[PratchettFan]

Their job is to make the society work, not please people.

And again, this begs the question.....

How will you know when society is "working" ?

Isn't that the heart of all arguments because not all have the same goals.

It was quite clear on another thread that someone feels libertarians are "unamerican" because they are willing to take away all social services.

While I don't agree with removal social services, I also don't agree that is unamerican. Voicing your POV is very much American.

And, apparently, to some "working" means no social programs.

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Their job is to make the society work, not please people.

And again, this begs the question.....

How will you know when society is "working" ?

Isn't that the heart of all arguments because not all have the same goals.

It was quite clear on another thread that someone feels libertarians are "unamerican" because they are willing to take away all social services.

While I don't agree with removal social services, I also don't agree that is unamerican. Voicing your POV is very much American.

And, apparently, to some "working" means no social programs.

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

And again...I think you would find that many do not feel that it is ultimately the job of government to accomplish those ends.

I am not arguing for the point...I am simply saying that in slogging through this thread that seems to be the place you and Fox disagree and yet don't seem to be listening to each other.

Your statement says the government should control outcomes.

I think Fox is saying government is more about process.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Their job is to make the society work, not please people.

And again, this begs the question.....

How will you know when society is "working" ?

Isn't that the heart of all arguments because not all have the same goals.

It was quite clear on another thread that someone feels libertarians are "unamerican" because they are willing to take away all social services.

While I don't agree with removal social services, I also don't agree that is unamerican. Voicing your POV is very much American.

And, apparently, to some "working" means no social programs.

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Their job is to make the society work, not please people.

And again, this begs the question.....

How will you know when society is "working" ?

Isn't that the heart of all arguments because not all have the same goals.

It was quite clear on another thread that someone feels libertarians are "unamerican" because they are willing to take away all social services.

While I don't agree with removal social services, I also don't agree that is unamerican. Voicing your POV is very much American.

And, apparently, to some "working" means no social programs.

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

And again...I think you would find that many do not feel that it is ultimately the job of government to accomplish those ends.

I am not arguing for the point...I am simply saying that in slogging through this thread that seems to be the place you and Fox disagree and yet don't seem to be listening to each other.

Your statement says the government should control outcomes.

I think Fox is saying government is more about process.

Addressing a problem like poverty is NOT controlling the outcome. Framing things in this way is ridiculous and disingenuous. Going into a policy like addressing poverty with social problems it is a given that the final outcome will be unknown. If you are trying to say the ends don't justify the means go ahead and say attempting to address poverty is not worth the cost or effort because of irrational ideological stances

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Their job is to make the society work, not please people.

And again, this begs the question.....

How will you know when society is "working" ?

Isn't that the heart of all arguments because not all have the same goals.

It was quite clear on another thread that someone feels libertarians are "unamerican" because they are willing to take away all social services.

While I don't agree with removal social services, I also don't agree that is unamerican. Voicing your POV is very much American.

And, apparently, to some "working" means no social programs.

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

There is a continuum of people who have different feelings about this.

I don't believe a large segment of the population is interested in watching people starve.

And no, I don't have a link (it is an opinion).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And again, this begs the question.....

How will you know when society is "working" ?

Isn't that the heart of all arguments because not all have the same goals.

It was quite clear on another thread that someone feels libertarians are "unamerican" because they are willing to take away all social services.

While I don't agree with removal social services, I also don't agree that is unamerican. Voicing your POV is very much American.

And, apparently, to some "working" means no social programs.

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

And again...I think you would find that many do not feel that it is ultimately the job of government to accomplish those ends.

I am not arguing for the point...I am simply saying that in slogging through this thread that seems to be the place you and Fox disagree and yet don't seem to be listening to each other.

Your statement says the government should control outcomes.

I think Fox is saying government is more about process.

Addressing a problem like poverty is NOT controlling the outcome. Framing things in this way is ridiculous and disingenuous. Going into a policy like addressing poverty with social problems it is a given that the final outcome will be unknown. If you are trying to say the ends don't justify the means go ahead and say attempting to address poverty is not worth the cost or effort because of irrational ideological stances

It is looking for a specific outcome (in this case we have a "poverty line" that we don't want people below). How far above the line....that is different.

Talk about disengeuous...your last statement is totally prejudiced.

First of all "what ends" would you justify.....after all....we are not controlling outcomes ?

I believe a cogent argument can be made (and probably has been) that investment in people that would get them out of poverty actually has a payback. The problem is the methodology for making the investment. Leaving that to the government alone hasn't worked out to well.

At the same time, I constantly hassle my conservative friends (who agree with my hypothesis) about how the so-called free market handles that.

So far it hasn't worked any better than the government.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And again, this begs the question.....

How will you know when society is "working" ?

Isn't that the heart of all arguments because not all have the same goals.

It was quite clear on another thread that someone feels libertarians are "unamerican" because they are willing to take away all social services.

While I don't agree with removal social services, I also don't agree that is unamerican. Voicing your POV is very much American.

And, apparently, to some "working" means no social programs.

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

There is a continuum of people who have different feelings about this.

I don't believe a large segment of the population is interested in watching people starve.

And no, I don't have a link (it is an opinion).

Who said people are interested in watching people starve. A segment of society, for ideological and purely partisan political reasons are adamant that the government has no responsibility to help those who may starve, other than ideological arguments. What others are calling for is for the government to offer a helping hand, not a hand out.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

And again...I think you would find that many do not feel that it is ultimately the job of government to accomplish those ends.

I am not arguing for the point...I am simply saying that in slogging through this thread that seems to be the place you and Fox disagree and yet don't seem to be listening to each other.

Your statement says the government should control outcomes.

I think Fox is saying government is more about process.

Addressing a problem like poverty is NOT controlling the outcome. Framing things in this way is ridiculous and disingenuous. Going into a policy like addressing poverty with social problems it is a given that the final outcome will be unknown. If you are trying to say the ends don't justify the means go ahead and say attempting to address poverty is not worth the cost or effort because of irrational ideological stances

It is looking for a specific outcome (in this case we have a "poverty line" that we don't want people below). How far above the line....that is different.

Talk about disengeuous...your last statement is totally prejudiced.

First of all "what ends" would you justify.....after all....we are not controlling outcomes ?

I believe a cogent argument can be made (and probably has been) that investment in people that would get them out of poverty actually has a payback. The problem is the methodology for making the investment. Leaving that to the government alone hasn't worked out to well.

At the same time, I constantly hassle my conservative friends (who agree with my hypothesis) about how the so-called free market handles that.

So far it hasn't worked any better than the government.

Before people demanded the government step in many more people as a percentage of the population were living in poverty. You are saying look backwards to a past that never existed. One where people were better of without government assistance. The problem is the facts don't back up your arguments or theories.

note: The outcome of poverty - not the particular social program. your arguments are either disingenuous or based on an ignorance of the facts.

 

[RKMBrown]

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

And again...I think you would find that many do not feel that it is ultimately the job of government to accomplish those ends.

I am not arguing for the point...I am simply saying that in slogging through this thread that seems to be the place you and Fox disagree and yet don't seem to be listening to each other.

Your statement says the government should control outcomes.

I think Fox is saying government is more about process.

Addressing a problem like poverty is NOT controlling the outcome. Framing things in this way is ridiculous and disingenuous. Going into a policy like addressing poverty with social problems it is a given that the final outcome will be unknown. If you are trying to say the ends don't justify the means go ahead and say attempting to address poverty is not worth the cost or effort because of irrational ideological stances

It is looking for a specific outcome (in this case we have a "poverty line" that we don't want people below). How far above the line....that is different.

Talk about disengeuous...your last statement is totally prejudiced.

First of all "what ends" would you justify.....after all....we are not controlling outcomes ?

I believe a cogent argument can be made (and probably has been) that investment in people that would get them out of poverty actually has a payback. The problem is the methodology for making the investment. Leaving that to the government alone hasn't worked out to well.

At the same time, I constantly hassle my conservative friends (who agree with my hypothesis) about how the so-called free market handles that.

So far it hasn't worked any better than the government.

Nonsense. Taking money through taxes for the purpose of redistributing income, while FORCING the people receiving said re-distributions to maintain the status of being poor to receive said hand-outs is not "allowing" a free market solution that uses hand-ups vs. government managed hand-out redistribution programs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

And again...I think you would find that many do not feel that it is ultimately the job of government to accomplish those ends.

I am not arguing for the point...I am simply saying that in slogging through this thread that seems to be the place you and Fox disagree and yet don't seem to be listening to each other.

Your statement says the government should control outcomes.

I think Fox is saying government is more about process.

Addressing a problem like poverty is NOT controlling the outcome. Framing things in this way is ridiculous and disingenuous. Going into a policy like addressing poverty with social problems it is a given that the final outcome will be unknown. If you are trying to say the ends don't justify the means go ahead and say attempting to address poverty is not worth the cost or effort because of irrational ideological stances

It is looking for a specific outcome (in this case we have a "poverty line" that we don't want people below). How far above the line....that is different.

Talk about disengeuous...your last statement is totally prejudiced.

First of all "what ends" would you justify.....after all....we are not controlling outcomes ?

I believe a cogent argument can be made (and probably has been) that investment in people that would get them out of poverty actually has a payback. The problem is the methodology for making the investment. Leaving that to the government alone hasn't worked out to well.

At the same time, I constantly hassle my conservative friends (who agree with my hypothesis) about how the so-called free market handles that.

So far it hasn't worked any better than the government.

Nonsense. Taking money through taxes for the purpose of redistributing income, while FORCING the people receiving said re-distributions to maintain the status of being poor to receive said hand-outs is not "allowing" a free market solution that uses hand-ups vs. government managed hand-out redistribution programs.

lovely myths you push

 

[RKMBrown]

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

And again...I think you would find that many do not feel that it is ultimately the job of government to accomplish those ends.

I am not arguing for the point...I am simply saying that in slogging through this thread that seems to be the place you and Fox disagree and yet don't seem to be listening to each other.

Your statement says the government should control outcomes.

I think Fox is saying government is more about process.

Addressing a problem like poverty is NOT controlling the outcome. Framing things in this way is ridiculous and disingenuous. Going into a policy like addressing poverty with social problems it is a given that the final outcome will be unknown. If you are trying to say the ends don't justify the means go ahead and say attempting to address poverty is not worth the cost or effort because of irrational ideological stances

It is looking for a specific outcome (in this case we have a "poverty line" that we don't want people below). How far above the line....that is different.

Talk about disengeuous...your last statement is totally prejudiced.

First of all "what ends" would you justify.....after all....we are not controlling outcomes ?

I believe a cogent argument can be made (and probably has been) that investment in people that would get them out of poverty actually has a payback. The problem is the methodology for making the investment. Leaving that to the government alone hasn't worked out to well.

At the same time, I constantly hassle my conservative friends (who agree with my hypothesis) about how the so-called free market handles that.

So far it hasn't worked any better than the government.

Nonsense. Taking money through taxes for the purpose of redistributing income, while FORCING the people receiving said re-distributions to maintain the status of being poor to receive said hand-outs is not "allowing" a free market solution that uses hand-ups vs. government managed hand-out redistribution programs.

lovely myths you push

Yeah that's right, hand-outs and hand-ups are myths. ROFL

 

[PratchettFan]

Their job is to make the society work, not please people.

And again, this begs the question.....

How will you know when society is "working" ?

Isn't that the heart of all arguments because not all have the same goals.

It was quite clear on another thread that someone feels libertarians are "unamerican" because they are willing to take away all social services.

While I don't agree with removal social services, I also don't agree that is unamerican. Voicing your POV is very much American.

And, apparently, to some "working" means no social programs.

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

I know there are those who would say the government has no role in this. I just think they are wrong.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

There is a continuum of people who have different feelings about this.

I don't believe a large segment of the population is interested in watching people starve.

And no, I don't have a link (it is an opinion).

Who said people are interested in watching people starve. A segment of society, for ideological and purely partisan political reasons are adamant that the government has no responsibility to help those who may starve, other than ideological arguments. What others are calling for is for the government to offer a helping hand, not a hand out.

And others are calling for even more.

So what was your point ?