Anti-Romney Rally in Cleveland, Ohio 9/26/12

[Preacher Man]

Thank you for the prayers, guys. My baby girl (she is 12, but will always be my baby girl) is ok, the studies did not show any abnormalities and now we just have to wait for the result of the biopsies. She needed General anesthetic, which was part of our concern. She is recuperating at home now.

[quietmike]

Glad to hear that.

[Preacher Man]

Please don't revive that thread. It was ten pages long and is almost two months old. I tried, and then decided I'm not going to go back and read through that entire thread, and I'm sure no one else wants to do that either. As such, I would have to re-argue all the things I had invested in that old thread. It's all a lot of work, and last time it was all for nothing. As I said, I'm not inclined to do it again.

What would you suggest we do to continue that conversation. Is think this thread is appropriate.

As for this thread, and the issue of imminent domain, let's allow that it is not a reflection of natural law as you assert. As such, it is an aberration or anomaly to the rest of the Constitution. It is also an aberration or anomaly that is clearly enumerated in the Constitution. You then grab this single aberrant straw, and use it to assert that the Constitution allows almost anything and everything imaginable whether its is an enumerated power or not. It is not a logical argument. It is grasping at a lone straw.

Since I'm not a constitutional scholar, I can only point to the example I do know. I'm sure that if we could pick the brain of a constitutional scholar he could point out other examples of English Common Law and from other sources in the Constitution, from terminology to legal principles. From what I have been reading, the cincept of Due Processs and the Separation of Powers originated from English Common Law.


Due Process

The concept of due process originated in English Common Law. The rule that individuals shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without notice and an opportunity to defend themselves predates written constitutions and was widely accepted in England. The Magna Charta, an agreement signed in 1215 that defined the rights of English subjects against the king, is an early example of a constitutional guarantee of due process. That document includes a clause that declares, "No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned … except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land" (ch. 39). This concept of the law of the land was later transformed into the phrase "due process of law." By the seventeenth century, England's North American colonies were using the phrase "due process of law" in their statutes.

Separation of Powers

Many of the concepts embodied in the U.S. Constitution—such as the separation and delegation of powers between three branches of government and the creation of an elective national assembly representing the will of the people—trace their roots to English law. Fundamental legal procedures applied in the U.S. civil and criminal justice systems also originated in England. The jury system, for example, slowly matured into its modern form over several hundred years of English history. The antecedents of many substantive areas of U.S. law, including the ubiquitous system of state and federal taxation, may be found in English history as well.

My intention is not to try to make the constitution to say what I want, but to point out that the constitution is not just about protecting individual rights and limiting government, nor is Natural Law the only source of the document. I don't dispute that Natural Law is a mayor source of the constitution. I don't dispute that protecting individual rights and limiting government are two of the purposes of the constitution. What I contend is that those are not the only sources nor the only purposes of the constitution. The writings of John Locke (among others), the Magna Carta, and English Common Law are sources of the constitution along with Natural Law. IMHO, the influence of Natural Law is greater than any other individual source, but it is not the only source reflected in the Constitution. IMHO, protecting individual rights and limiting government is a large part of the purpose of the constitution, but protecting society and maintaining social order are also purposes of the constitution.

Not that it matters, but earlier in this thread, you tried to define what Libertarians believe. I can assure you that there are all kinds of libertarians with all sorts of beliefs. At one time, the only definition for the word was "one who believes in the doctrine of free will" (as opposed to predestination.) It was a word more associated with Baptists than others. Now the word has so many meanings that it's almost meaningless. Today everyone from Naom Chomsky to Howard Stern has identified as libertarians. Anarchy is a form of libertarianism. Then there are Objectivists/Randian libertarians. There are the I-just-wanna-smoke-pot libertarians. And there are libertarians who believe in Natural Law and the philosophy of John Locke. The word is a big umbrella, just like the word "Christianity." Trying to define it by what one sect believes is impossible. If one must try, the best definition is: A libertarian is an advocate of liberty.

If my posts read like I'm trying to tell Libertarians what they believe, then I apologize, as that was not my intention. I'm wasn't trying to define Libertarianism but to clarify why I am not and can't be a libertarian. For me it boils down to the ethical foundation of individualism, which is one of the philosophical components of Libertarianism. It is clear from some of the libertarian posters here the ethical foundation I mention is reflected in their posts. I recognize that not all libertarians are the same, and that there are several forms of libertarianism. But at least the ones who posts here do reflect this ethical foundation, which I personally can't follow. There is nothing wrong with being a libertarian, but I can't be one. Would you agree with me that individualism (individual rights takes precedence over the welfare of society) is one of the components of libertarianism?

[Scott Free]

Since I'm not a constitutional scholar, I can only point to the example I do know. I'm sure that if we could pick the brain of a constitutional scholar he could point out other examples of English Common Law and from other sources in the Constitution, from terminology to legal principles. From what I have been reading, the concept of Due Process and the Separation of Powers originated from English Common Law.

There is nothing wrong with being a libertarian, but I can't be one. Would you agree with me that individualism (individual rights takes precedence over the welfare of society) is one of the components of libertarianism?

I originally stated that the things that were borrowed from English Common Law were "procedural." That was clearly the wrong word to use. I should have said that the things that come from Common Law are not things that violate Natural Law. Without looking into it myself, I'll accept that Due Process and Separation of Powers originate in Common Law. Assuming this, then it's also clear that neither are opposed to Natural Law. They don't infringe on property or liberty. We disagree about whether Imminent Domain is a recognition of Natural Law due to the just compensation requirement. Even so, I'm willing to let this go for the sake of my next point. That is: If it IS a violation of Natural Law, it is a clear and enumerated violation and it is the only clear and enumerated violation. It is a huge and unsupportable leap to assert that because Due Process originates in Common Law, then the Constitution therefore allows the government to play Robin Hood.

I do not agree that individualism (individual rights takes precedence over the welfare of society.) I believe that individualism provides for the general welfare of society. Protect individual rights and society will flourish. Put those rights in jeopardy (as has been done) and society will crumble (as it is doing.)

I do believe that individualism (individual God-given human rights) is a component of libertarianism (or at least the version of libertarianism to which I subscribe.) Given that, then Roger Williams, John Locke, John Leland, Thomas Jefferson, and all those guys who put their name to the Declaration of Independence could rightly be call libertarians. That said, it's probably best to just stay away from that particular word since there is so much disagreement about what the word actually means. To make it simpler, I'd rather ask you about your disagreements with Locke's version of Natural Law. I don't think you truly understand it. If you do understand it, you must certainly disagree with it (or you wouldn't be looking for ways to circumvent it.) So—what did Locke get wrong?


Edited to add: John Locke and Separation of Powers: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found.../v1ch10s3.html

[JohnTheTexican]

Imminent Domain is indeed a recognition of Natural Law in that it requires just compensation. It is a recognition of a property right. Yes, we do rely on Common Law for procedural concerns. We do not rely on it as an excuse to ignore Natural Law. You repeatedly refer to this one example as though it redefines the entire Constitution. Your entire argument is built upon this one seeming aberration. You treat Natural Law as just a bunch of fancy words without real meaning or importance.

Eminent domain is the polar opposite of natural law, unless you believe that natural law embodies a feudal conception of property--that all property is held at the whim of the sovereign, and not because of any Lockean nonsense about mixing ones labor with stuff from the natural world. But while it's certainly contrary to a libertarian or classical liberal conception of property, it was so thouroughly ingrained that no one seriously questioned that it was a power that all governments have. Not even the natural law theorists opposed it, even though it was directly contrary to their principles. If you read the Constitution, you'll find that there is no grant of the power of eminent domain to the government; it was presumed. All there is is a small limits that the Fifth Amendment places on it--and that was an afterthought.

The Constitution also expressly allowed (art. 1, sec. 9) for 19 more years of slave imports, and even went so far as to allow for a tax of up to $10 a head! So not only did it countenance reducing human beings to the status of property, but as if that outrage were not enough, it required the owners of that property to pay a tax just to bring their own property into the country! What kind of "natural law" would allow that?

[Scott Free]

Eminent domain is the polar opposite of natural law, unless you believe that natural law embodies a feudal conception of property--that all property is held at the whim of the sovereign, and not because of any Lockean nonsense about mixing ones labor with stuff from the natural world. But while it's certainly contrary to a libertarian or classical liberal conception of property, it was so thouroughly ingrained that no one seriously questioned that it was a power that all governments have. Not even the natural law theorists opposed it, even though it was directly contrary to their principles. If you read the Constitution, you'll find that there is no grant of the power of eminent domain to the government; it was presumed. All there is is a small limits that the Fifth Amendment places on it--and that was an afterthought.

Did you miss the part where I said that the Constitutional requirement that the government must provide "just compensation" is a recognition that a violation of (natural) property rights has taken place? In any case, if our Constitutional version of imminent domain is the polar opposite of Natural Law, it is the only specified polar opposite in the Constitution (as I've said a few times already.)

[Noctis3880]

We are not terribly apart on this. Just keep in mind that the reason you can stop a drunk from driving is because you are preventing the breaking of a law. There are restrictions on how far you can go with this. The Statute determined what, when, who, and how, but you get the idea.

Is it the protection of the law that's the idea or the protection of society? To me, a sound basis for all laws, "granted" rights, restrictions, and so forth is that they protect people from other people. To be clear though, I don't feel that all laws serve that purpose, particularly in the case of the federal bans and restrictions on the possession, sale, and transport of butterfly knives and automatic knives. I don't feel those laws do jack diddly squat.

Unfortunately Eminent Domain was used for the benefit of third parties. Someone want to build a new hotel and casino that will bring x amount of jobs and money to the town. The investors don't want to pay full price for some properties and the City uses the power of Eminent Domain to get the property for a fraction of the price. This kind of thing actually happened, which is why Bush signed that Executive Order.

A poster child of good intentions paving the road to hell. But then again, the right to bear arms has been abused to the detriment of society in the past, as has the right to free speech. The question is whether or not the rewards are worth the risk. What Bush did is what I feel should be done. Our rights should be continually safeguarded against such abuse, with constant diligence against those who would undermine them.

I think you are right and the rights related to legal system are the best examples. If society thinks food stamps shouldn't exist, we can always vote accordingly. This is the thing. The interest of the State in maintaining social order is real. There is a reason republican administrations having a super majority in congress have never attempted to eliminate the program. I agree with reforming the program in order to eventually reduce it size, but the truth of the matter is that the social and financial cost of not having the program will be more than the cost of having it. That been said, as long as the program remains politicized, it will cost more than it needs to and the more difficult it will be to reform it.

What? I don't recall being asked to vote on anything other than who to elect for office. A large majority on both sides feel that Voter ID laws should be put in place everywhere, why isn't that done yet? The reason why republican administrations haven't attempted to eliminate the programs is because they created them in the first place and because they campaign upon the protection of the programs as well, it just so happens that democrats are getting the credit for them. Kind of like how Obama is getting credit for something that Bush did(extend Lifeline to cell phones). And I suspect republicans realize that while Romney's "47%" comment was way off base, at least in so far as the actual numbers, there exists a sizable portion of society that are dependent on entitlements for their standard of living.

Cut them off, and you'll suddenly see thousands of single mothers trotting their 3-5 kids in front of the camera explaining how they can't feed their children because the evil rich Republicans cut off their foodstamps. And the audience will suck it all up while blatantly ignoring the obesity of the mothers and her children, the designer clothes, the iPhone, and the excessive jewelry. That will mark the end of the Republican party.

I'm not saying that the right to life equates the right to be provided the means to life. But the opposite is also not accurate. The right to life is not the same as the privilege of wealth. At the same time, denying the essential of life to those who are unable to acquire them is the same thing as denying them the right to life. My point it this is not as simple a problem to describe or deal with as Whittle would have us believe.

Indeed it's not a simple thing. I for one am of the opinion that those truly unable to provide for themselves should not be left to die in the gutter. And yet, if the cost of supporting these people reaches the point where it could threaten ALL of us, I'm not sure how adamant I would be in my opinion. It's easy to sing the pretty words until the lifeboat starts to sink, and suddenly you can't help but think about who you're going to throw into the waters first. It's easy to say you'd be willing to die rather than sacrifice someone else, is it right to make that decision on behalf of everyone else, particularly if they feel differently? It's one thing to sacrifice yourself for your ideals, it's quite another to sacrifice everyone else for your ideals.

I know. I freely admitted that in my comment. Selfishness, greed and envy are part of human nature. That is why ethics and morals cannot be excluded from our system or the decision making process. Otherwise only he most greedy, ruthless, violent, manipulative, unprincipled, and unscrupulous would have economic, political, and social power. We have enough of that as it is. Look at the current world financial crisis. Why did sectors of the world's banking community decided to exchange the health of the world's economy for personal profit? When ethics and morality are pushed out the window, bad things happen.

Indeed, but is ethics and morality alone enough? Like it was said before, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. These programs started out good, but somewhere down the road, became corrupted. I feel that reasoning and logic are even more important factors than merely morality. Morality cannot be legislated. Charity can be forced, but that is merely theft. Morality can be taught, but you can't force it on someone without morals. If we could, our prisons would be empty.

I feel a lot of this corruption could have been prevented, stopped, or acted against if the general population could simply put two and two together. How many would be so supportive of entitlement programs if people realized that the programs cost more than the total cost of running the entire government including defense and all of our wars? How far would people go to resist cuts to the programs if they realized that a default on our national debt would mean zero payouts for any of the programs?

You can't enforce morality on every single individual, even those in positions of power. You need God for that. And I don't mean religion, I mean God has to personally make sure each and every person on this Earth is moral. And you can never quite tell if a person is simply pretending to be moral.

No, reason is the answer for society. Those who are ignorant and oblivious are what allows those without ethics and without morals to manipulate them. Imagine what would happen if everybody knew what the full consequences are of buying a Made in China product. Nobody would ever buy them, jobs would not be outsourced because there is no demand for overseas products. Hell, some people might even stop using the services of companies who outsource their customer service to India. It doesn't matter if the fatcat businessman wants to sell people an inferior product because nobody is buying it.

Actually, I am very aware that the way the system is working today doesn't completely reflect the original purpose of the program. One of the reasons for this is that the program has been politicized; it is been used for the political benefit of one party. But if that was the only thing that the program did, then why Republican administrations with super majorities haven't put the program out of its misery. IMHO, because in spite of the its politicization, the program is still serving a necessary social function. The abuse of the system alone makes the program inefficient.

Is Medicare abused? It's nice of you to believe in the good intention of the Republican party, but I assure you that public backlash is a far greater motivation.

As for welfare as a crutch, it all depends if you need a crutch or not. If you have a broken leg, a crutch is necessary while your leg heals. A crutch becomes a problem if one insist on using it even after the leg is healed. A crutch can also be seen as a problem by observers convinced that even with a broken leg a man shouldn't use a crutch, period. The fact that some people MAY become addicted to painkillers is no reason to deny painkillers to everyone in genuine need of them.

Indeed. What about when the entire system is in danger of collapse? The fact that some people MAY steal my Rolex is no reason to lock my door up tight and have the watch hidden in my safe and deny open access to everyone. The thing is, if the only safeguard against abuse is morality, you'll be sorely disappointed on a regular basis.

I agree with your concern. That been said, I think apathy is one of the causes of Chronic poverty. Apathy is never manifest in just one area of life, so I think those in Chronic Apathy are less likely to actually care to cast their vote. They may talk a lot about it, but when the time comes at least some couldn't be bothered. They figure someone else will take care of it. That, of course, can't and doesn't describe all in chronic poverty, but it certainly describes some.

I can't imagine it's that difficult to fill out an Absentee Ballot and let the nice folks from the SEIU deliver them to the mailbox for them. I mean, they drove them all the way out there, and they marched around for a few hours. It's optimistic of you to think that they'll stay at home on election day because they're too lazy, but the threat of the Republican party taking away their freebies and destroying their standard of living is more than sufficient motivation to go out for one day. I also wouldn't put it past the unions to give away "free" gift cards to confirmed Democrat voters. Taking a page out of the Mexican elections playbook.

Chronic apathy is indeed the problem, but I feel that is more the case for the average American and not simply those in "poverty". I feel I sufficiently covered that in my blog.

[JohnTheTexican]

Did you miss the part where I said that the Constitutional requirement that the government must provide "just compensation" is a recognition that a violation of (natural) property rights has taken place? In any case, if our Constitutional version of imminent domain is the polar opposite of Natural Law, it is the only specified polar opposite in the Constitution (as I've said a few times already.)

That and slavery.

[Scott Free]

That and slavery.

Yes. You are absolutely 100% right about this. I guess if someone wants to use slavery in the Constitution as justification for the Federal Government to freely violate individual rights, the conversation would be very entertaining.

[Noctis3880]

I'm curious to know if anyone thinks the system can be changed without casualties, either literally or to our morals.

As mentioned, the key reason why there are multi-generational government dependents is because our system rewards bad behavior and punishes hard work. But what would really happen if that stopped? Say we stopped the child tax credit, and we refused to supply a single dime of government funds to those who willingly have more children than they can afford. Now what?

I'd imagine a likely outcome is that the children will starve, will be denied medical services, and will eventually die. Though not before being trotted out in front of the cameras in protest against the lack of government freebies necessary to keep them alive. They become bargaining chips so to speak, and their withering skeleton forms are going to speak to a lot of people. Assuming of course that both mother and child don't die due to childbirth at home because the taxpayer will no longer foot the bill to pay for the childbirth.

Bad behavior needs to be punished in order to discourage it yes, but it doesn't seem like any potentiality is favorable. Fine the parent? How do you fine someone with no income? Put them in jail? They'll love the free room and board, entertainment, and a warm meal every day. I won't speculate on whether or not they'll enjoy the anal sex. Take the kids away? That'll be a poster child for government abductions.

It seems that inevitably, whatever you do or don't do, the innocent(so far) children will ultimately be the ones to pay the price.

[Noctis3880]

This paints a pretty grim reality of things.

You know, it's kind of funny that most people I know are pretty united in their despise of people on foodstamps, yet they don't pay attention to who they're voting for.

[Codger_64]

This paints a pretty grim reality of things.

You know, it's kind of funny that most people I know are pretty united in their despise of people on foodstamps, yet they don't pay attention to who they're voting for.

I think it is funny that people are so adamant about "despising" other people based upon their financial status without having any knowledge of their circumstances. Well, until they lose their own job due to whatever personal circumstance. It is just easier to condem the "other" as an entire class than to go to the trouble to think of them as unique individuals.

[jdm61]

I think it is funny that people are so adamant about "despising" other people based upon their financial status without having any knowledge of their circumstances. Well, until they lose their own job due to whatever personal circumstance. It is just easier to condem the "other" as an entire class than to go to the trouble to think of them as unique individuals.

I have but five words......."me and my 5 babies."

[Codger_64]

I have but five words......."me and my 5 babies."

Do you have a source showing what percentage of people on assistance have five children?

[Noctis3880]

I think it is funny that people are so adamant about "despising" other people based upon their financial status without having any knowledge of their circumstances. Well, until they lose their own job due to whatever personal circumstance. It is just easier to condem the "other" as an entire class than to go to the trouble to think of them as unique individuals.

Unique individuals that consistently and willingly get dragged into the Obama campaign's class warfare baits? I believe it was Obama who started the whole "us" and "them". Perhaps he didn't invent it, but he's the only one in my lifetime who brought the issue up to unprecedented levels.

Do you have a source showing what percentage of people on assistance have five children?

Pretty small actually, 2-3 would be the standard.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Pub...cteristics.pdf

The average household with children had 3.3 people compared with an average of 1.1 people for
households without children. A majority (56 percent) of SNAP households with children were
single-adult households.

In fiscal year 2010, 46 percent of all SNAP participants were nonelderly adults, and 8 percent
were elderly. About 62 percent of nonelderly adults were women, as were 66 percent of elderly
adults. Forty-seven percent of all participants were children, similar to the number of participating
children in fiscal year 2009. About 66 percent of the children were school-age.

In each month of fiscal year 2010, SNAP served approximately 8.9 million households with
children, representing 49 percent of all SNAP households. Households with children and earnings
constituted 78 percent of all SNAP households with earnings (Table 3.3). Sixteen percent of all
households with children received TANF cash benefits, and 3 percent received a combination of
TANF and earnings (Table A.6). Compared with other SNAP households, those with children
received a relatively high average SNAP benefit of $419 per month (Table 3.4), indicating that the
average household size among SNAP households with children (3.3 people) was larger than the
average household size among all SNAP households (2.2 people).
In fiscal year 2010, single adults (usually a female) headed more than half (56 percent) of all
SNAP households with children, accounting for 27 percent of all SNAP households (Table A.14).
Approximately 9 percent of all SNAP households included a married head of household and
children, accounting for 19 percent of all SNAP households with children.

As per your original question, if I'm reading the chart right(Page 55 on the link), there are 561,000 households on SNAP with 6+ people. A relatively small amount at 3.1% of total participants. Oh, and the lady said she had 6 kids to feed, not including herself. Now the 3-4 household size would account for 25% of all participants. And over 56% of that should be single parent households. So roughly 14% or 1 in 8 of all participants.

I'm not particularly bothered by the number of children so much as the question of how many of these single mothers continued having children after going on government assistance?

It's something that's not included in the data, and just bothers me to no end.

[quietmike]

I think it is funny that people are so adamant about "despising" other people based upon their financial status without having any knowledge of their circumstances.

I don't see people condemning people for their financial situation, only when they demand help without first doing things to improve their situation themselves.

[Codger_64]

I don't see people condemning people for their financial situation, only when they demand help without first doing things to improve their situation themselves.

Then you didn't read the post I was referencing? I'll quote it again:

You know, it's kind of funny that most people I know are pretty united in their despise of people on foodstamps...

You added the disclaimer/modifyer. OP did not. I dispise people on food stamps who rape, rob and pillage. See? Modified.

[quietmike]

Then you didn't read the post I was referencing? I'll quote it again:



You added the disclaimer/modifyer. OP did not. I dispise people on food stamps who rape, rob and pillage. See? Modified.

Lots of people have a bad financial situation without being on food stamps.

[La_Maleta_Azul]

These are all prime examples of people who vote for a living rather than work.

[jdm61]

Keep Obama in President!!!!!