How free are we?

[Monty]

Not at all ... but ... the Constitution is specfic about that also ...

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The Federal goverment SHOULD have limited influence on "we the people" ...... the more local you can bring goveranance into play, the better .... imho

 

[AMonger]

I see it you believe you should only pay taxes if those taxes go to what you want, I understand that we all pay taxes.
So you say the Police and fire steal there are payed with those taxes. Teachers also get payed with those same taxes and the roads.

Aaaaaah, I knew someone would twist my position that way.
I didn't say anything about only paying taxes if it goes toward what I want. I said income redistribution (i.e. welfare-type programs) is theft. As was pointed out in another response, the government is only authorized to spend money on certain things. Taking money from individuals to redistribute among others, safety-hammock style, isn't among them. Roads are, though, and teachers are generally paid through property taxes, not income taxes. Property taxes are evil in another way outside the purview of this thread.

I have no problems if it goes to others who are having problems.

You're a fine human being. Get out YOUR personal checkbook and write a check to your church's benevolence fund, or the Red Cross, or the local food pantry. You get no moral or ethical credit when your mugger donates your money to the poor. Stop being that mugger and being generous with Other People's Money.

You live here you work here and you want to be protected here those things cost.

But punctuation is free.

We work and save if we can but if you are let go you want some kind protection to help.

When that happened to me, I did the moral thing and turned to private assistance instead of stealing. Have all the private charity safety nets you want. Heck, start one yourself and give the glory to Christ, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster if that's what you're into. But don't steal from others to do it. Thou shalt not steal.

I like having my money and can

(sic)

do without Police that just crazy. Police are here and they need things like cars guns. Taxes pay for it so stop paying.Thanks from Linda and Micheal

We do, indeed, need honest police. They are funded by taxes levied through the general welfare clause, as are roads, bridges, and many other things that benefit all alike. Welfare and such fall outside of that clause and are theft.

 

[chefdennis]

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Article 1, section 8 defines what powers the Federal government shall have, anything NOT listed there remains the pervue of the states.

What so many confuse is the FERERAL government did NOT create the States, the States created, (via contract), the Federal government. That contract has been breached time and again.

Just as some say the Indian nations are free and independent of the Federal overlords, so are the various states. Each state is a free and independent nation unto it's self. The fact they chose to become "incorporated" into the federal system did not deny them the status of independence in managing their affirs.

Monte wrote:

Not at all ... but ... the Constitution is specfic about that also ...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



The Federal goverment SHOULD have limited influence on "we the people" ...... the more local you can bring goveranance into play, the better .... imho

Thank You Monte!! The only problem here is the the Libs on both sides cant find it within themselves to live within the confines of the Constitution..hell for that matter none of them in elected office do so as was put forth by our Founding Fathers...and that is why we the people need to take back the Government either through the ballot box (fat chance there) or with the "Watering of the Tree of Liberty with thhe Blood of Tyrants and Patriots"....

 

[chefdennis]

Aaaaaah, I knew someone would twist my position that way.
I didn't say anything about only paying taxes if it goes toward what I want. I said income redistribution (i.e. welfare-type programs) is theft. As was pointed out in another response, the government is only authorized to spend money on certain things. Taking money from individuals to redistribute among others, safety-hammock style, isn't among them. Roads are, though, and teachers are generally paid through property taxes, not income taxes. Property taxes are evil in another way outside the purview of this thread.

You're a fine human being. Get out YOUR personal checkbook and write a check to your church's benevolence fund, or the Red Cross, or the local food pantry. You get no moral or ethical credit when your mugger donates your money to the poor. Stop being that mugger and being generous with Other People's Money.

But punctuation is free.

When that happened to me, I did the moral thing and turned to private assistance instead of stealing. Have all the private charity safety nets you want. Heck, start one yourself and give the glory to Christ, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster if that's what you're into. But don't steal from others to do it. Thou shalt not steal.
(sic)
We do, indeed, need honest police. They are funded by taxes levied through the general welfare clause, as are roads, bridges, and many other things that benefit all alike. Welfare and such fall outside of that clause and are theft.

Thanks Amonger!! Dr. Walter Williams sayes it oh so well:

There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation.
--Walter E. Williams


And Mr.William F. Buckley had this to say:

"Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive."

--William F. Buckley

Then there was

Margaret Thatcher

'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'

 

[OntarioVanMan]

local and state police are primarily STATE funded....as is welfare...and states have the right to govern themselves as they see fit...right?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Monte wrote:



Thank You Monte!! The only problem here is the the Libs on both sides cant find it within themselves to live within the confines of the Constitution..hell for that matter none of them in elected office do so as was put forth by our Founding Fathers...and that is why we the people need to take back the Government either through the ballot box (fat chance there) or with the "Watering of the Tree of Liberty with thhe Blood of Tyrants and Patriots"....

Fat chance of the latter happening either....too many lean on the direction of the wind...

 

[chefdennis]

OVM wrote:

F

at chance of the latter happening either....too many lean on the direction of the wind...

One can dream....As for the states governing as they wish, as within the pursue of "Their States Constitution" and "Common law", is how it was set to be..but as the states and people became slaves of the Fed and gave away their rights for the return of tax dollars, it all went to hell in a hand basket.....oh and "welfare" is far from a "state fund program"....while it "was" at one time mostly a "state funded program", we can all thank Lyndon B. Johnson for our current welfare system....

 

[AMonger]

local and state police are primarily STATE funded....as is welfare...and states have the right to govern themselves as they see fit...right?

Within the confines of both the federal and state constitutions, and human rights, yes.
Food, housing, and medical care are not human rights, btw. I know some will claim they are. There is a lot of federal finding of state and local law enforcement, also, all of it unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I was going on to say...that some Federal subsidies for them programs goes on.....which makes it wrong.....right?.....

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Within the confines of both the federal and state constitutions, and human rights, yes.
Food, housing, and medical care are not human rights, btw. I know some will claim they are. There is a lot of federal finding of state and local law enforcement, also, all of it unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

See BOLD....

as liberal I may seem to be...ummmm big fat no on that one.....

 

[EnglishLady]

Within the confines of both the federal and state constitutions, and human rights, yes.
Food, housing, and medical care are not human rights, btw. I know some will claim they are. There is a lot of federal finding of state and local law enforcement, also, all of it unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights


Article 25.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection

 

[chefdennis]

No the programs themselves when left to the "States" are not wrong, but Federal Subsides are wrong, yes....

As for your view as a "Big Fat Liberal", wait..thats not how you said that is it!?!? , Anyhow, that view would not be Constitutional...

 

[OntarioVanMan]

No the programs themselves when left to the "States" are not wrong, but Federal Subsides are wrong, yes....

As for your view as a "Big Fat Liberal", wait..thats not how you said that is it!?!? , Anyhow, that view would not be Constitutional...

LOL....I said AS LIBERAL AS I MAY SEEM......gee whiz....

 

[OntarioVanMan]

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights


Article 25.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection

I don't think that applies to the USof A.....

 

[chefdennis]

LOL....I said AS LIBERAL AS I MAY SEEM......gee whiz....

Chef Dennis="Spin Doctor"

 

[EnglishLady]

I don't think that applies to the USof A.....

Silly me .... I thought Universal meant ..... well ....... Universal

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Silly me .... I thought Universal meant ..... well ....... Universal

silly you...the US is not part of the world...look around....

 

[chefdennis]

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights


Article 25.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection

LOL, from the UN?!!?? Really?? LOL....

Has funny as that is, you will not find it anywhere within the Constitution Of the United States or our "Bill of Rights"... BUT every person alive is certainly "entitled" to the "PURSUIT" of those things....as in , be resonsiable for ones self and don' expect anyone else to provide them...as has been pointed out, "charity" is a noble thing and most will "help"..but forced help, thays wrong, and theft....

The UN...lol....

 

[EnglishLady]

LOL, from the UN?!!?? Really?? LOL....

Has funny as that is, you will not find it anywhere within the Constitution Of the United States or our "Bill of Rights"... BUT every person alive is certainly "entitled" to the "PURSUIT" of those things....as in , be resonsiable for ones self and don' expect anyone else to provide them...as has been pointed out, "charity" is a noble thing and most will "help"..but forced help, thays wrong, and theft....

The UN...lol....

Are you saying that ppl are not entitled to food? to drink? to medical care?

 

[xiggi]

Are you saying that ppl are not entitled to food? to drink? to medical care?

Actually no we are.not "entitled" to it.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using EO Forums