Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

I don't see the argument for a person being rendered a serf because they are dependent on the state. They still have their liberty and freedoms.

Tut

---

But Tut you have left money out of the equation, benevolence is something people with money do to show they care, but they cannot see that if they contribute the same amount by way of taxation this is somehow not an inroad into their liberty. And the recipricant of that benevolence, why should they have certainty in their lives when they can be dependent upon the occasional crumbs from the benevolent donors who can withdraw their benevolence whenever they please.

It is all founded on a false premise, that liberty somehow equates to independence in thought and action. Liberty is not to suffer compulsion, beyond that there are no guarantees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

But Tut you have left money out of the equation, benevolence is something people with money do to show they care, but they cannot see that if they contribute the same amount by way of taxation this is somehow not an inroad into their liberty. And the recipricant of that benevolence, why should they have certainity in their lives when they can be dependent upon the occasional crumbs from the benevolent donors who can withdraw their benevolence whenever they please.

It is all founded on a false premise, that liberty somehow equates to independence in thought and action. Liberty is not to suffer compulsion, beyond that there are no guarantees.

---

Interesting comment.

It seems to me that Tom might have the Leviathan by the tail. The real danger to liberty and freedom doesn't come from the nanny state. It may well come from the belief that benevolence should come with 'strings attached'

Tut

Government 'benevolence' always has strings attached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

[I]

You see the answer in the responses I get. The system is in jeopardy and the only answer is ever more extraction of wealth from others. If they take the total wealth of the top 2% of the nation they could not fix the long term solvency issues of the nanny state . It promises more than it can ever get from the confiscation of private wealth. What kind of majoritarian system survives by this perscription ? History has discarded more than one majoritarian system .

Yeah ,I recommend F.A. Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom ',as well as 'Liberty and Tyranny ' by Mark Levin .

---

Hi Tom,

All social, political and economic systems are nothing more than a house of cards. This is because your system, like ours has come together in a piece-meal way. We try and prop-up the cards. Most democratic societies exhibit this trait. This is what makes them democratic. On this basis I don't see the system being a 'majoritarian system'. I'll have to admit I am not exactly sure what a ' majoritarian system' is. My guess is that its not compatible with the democratic system you have in place.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Government 'benevolence' always has strings attached.

---

Hi Speech,

What are these strings?

Tut

I find it strange that it is considered benevolence at all it if it's the confiscation and distribution of other's property. Our Constitution is supposed to protect property rights . But for the so called ' general welfare 'confiscatory redistribution and excessive eminent domain happens routinely.

Regarding 'majoritarian'... another way to describe it is 'the tyranny of the majority (Alexis de Tocqueville)

I have a good quote that describes majoritarian as opposed to what is being described as democratic.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses...
The rest of the quote describes the progression to dependency (soft tyranny). [Not sure the source but it is usually attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler or Alexis de Tocqueville]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses..

---

Hello again, tom:

Assuming the writer is correct, and we're AT the point of collapse, what replaces it?

It would seem you favor Oligarchy.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Speech,

What are these strings?

---

Tom offered a great one, "the confiscation and distribution of other's property."

It's not 'benevolence' if it's taken from me to give to someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Assuming the writer is correct, and we're AT the point of collapse, what replaces it?

t would seem you favor Oligarchy.

excon

---

Hmm , if I favored a Executive that sticks the taxpayers and GM stakeholders with the tab for taking over an automobile company (illegal even under the very broad terms of TARP);giving favorable terms to his UAW cronies... appoints another crony with union ties to the NLRB without a Senate confirmation... if I favored this Executive that talks about "shared sacrifice' /make the rich pay ,and yet appoined one cabinet secretary after another who was caught not paying their share (or in the case of Jeff Immelt ,his whole corporation paid nothing... Immelt was awarded a position as an Obma economic advisor ).. then you would be able to claim that I favor an oligarchy.

Maybe if the Democrat oligarchs were paying their fair share under current rates then there would be no need to raise the rates on the few taxpayers who already pay over 60% of the total government revenues.
Where did you say Kerry parked his yacht ? (can you say that with a Brahmin accent ?)

After reviewing the comments here I can see that you are living in a dilusion. You are not ruled by the majority but by a minority of individuals who have duped the majority into thinking they represent their interests

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I find it strange that it is considered benevolence at all it if it's the confiscation and distribution of other's property. Our Constitution is supposed to protect property rights . But for the so called ' general welfare 'confiscatory redistribution and excessive eminent domain happens routinely.

Regarding 'majoritarian' ...another way to describe it is 'the tyranny of the majority (Alexis de Tocqueville)

I have a good quote that describes majoritarian as opposed to what is being described as democratic.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses...
the rest of the quote describes the progression to dependency (soft tyranny). [Not sure the source but it is usually attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler or Alexis de Tocqueville]

---

Hi Tom,

I don't know who came up with this quote either but whoever it was doesn't make or recognize the distinction between liberty and democracy.
They are not necessarily one and the same. Lock and et al. recognized this. This is why you have the separation of powers. Individual rights cannot be voted out, even if the individual wanted to forfeit them.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

tom offered a great one, "the confiscation and distribution of other's property."

It's not 'benevolence' if it's taken from me to give to someone
else.

---

Hi speech,

I assume Tom and yourself are referring to taxation.

Tut

Of course they are referring to taxation they want to make sure their benevolence is recognised and goes to the "right" people, not to the destitute supporters of the other side. Taxation has been a problem in the US every since King George slapped tax on tea, Instead of being sensible and drinking coffee they got in huff and you know the result. They went from backwoods to fighting for no taxation without representation everywhere

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Of course they are referring to taxation they want to make sure their benevolence is recognised and goes to the "right" people, not to the destitute supporters of the the other side. Taxation has been a problem in the US every since King George slapped tax on tea, Instead of being sensible and drinking coffee they got in huff and you know the result. they went from backwoods to fighting for no taxation without representation everywhere

---

Hi Clete,


Ah.. the plot thickens

Quote:

---

Of course they are referring to taxation they want to make sure their benevolence is recognised and goes to the "right" people, not to the destitute supporters of the other side. Taxation has been a problem in the US every since King George slapped tax on tea, Instead of being sensible and drinking coffee they got in huff and you know the result. They went from backwoods to fighting for no taxation without representation everywhere

---

The Brit excise on tea at least was a consumption tax. Clete is right in saying the individual had a choice to not drink the tea. (in fact ,tea was not the popular beverage at the time. ) The issue back then was representation .So the comparsion to what I am saying is not valid .

The US Constitution makes it clear where the Federal government has the authority to tax. Redistribution and collectivist compassion to achieve social equity is not one of them.
The assumption I am reading from the left is that the fruit of human labor is 1st the government's to portion and dole out and not the individual's .
If this were not so ,then the government would not be confiscatiing it directly from the paycheck of the people.

The left keeps telling us that the problem is that the top 2% aren't paying their fair share and that is why we are in constant debt crisis.
This is not true . As I've previously stated ,this group already pays 60% of national revenues. If all their income was confiscated ,it would net the government less that a trillion dollars of the $4 trillion budget the President proposed this year.

By far the biggest short and long term cause of this imbalance is "entitlement" spending (and a growing obligation to debt service).
For the most part those programs are not catering to charity for the needy . It is for making the rest of the populace dependent on the government largess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Of course they are referring to taxation they want to make sure their benevolence is recognised and goes to the "right" people, not to the destitute supporters of the the other side.

---

be·nev·o·lence
 
1. desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one's fellow creatures.

2. an act of kindness; a charitable gift.

My benevolence - charity - is no one's business. I prefer no recognition just as I prefer being able to choose the recipient. I'd much rather choose to support a destitute child in El Salvador than be forced to give it to someone with 2 TV's, 2 cars, air conditioning, satellite TV and an automatic dishwasher, which I don't even have.

There was one more entry on benevolence:

3. English History . a forced contribution to the sovereign.

I'm speaking of the first 2, you guys must be thinking of the 3rd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The US Constitution makes it clear where the Federal government has the authority to tax. Redistribution and collectivist compassion to achieve social equity is not one of them.
The assumption I am reading from the left is that the fruit of human labor is 1st the government's to portion and dole out and not the individual's .
If this were not so ,then the govenment would not be confiscatiing it directly from the paycheck of the people.

---

Apparently they can and they do. I guess this is why constitutional lawyers get so much money. Who can come up with the most 'creative' interpretation of the Constitution.

I think you assumption about how the government distributes your taxes is probably correct.

I understand that the US Constitution recognizes the rights of the individual and of course this is very important but we also need to take into account society also exists as a collective membership. Positive and negative rights, if you like. I realize the taxman is infringing on your negative rights. Most of the time positive rights do infringe on our negative rights, but negative rights can also infringe on positive rights as well.

As far as your economic assessment goes I am happy to go along with it. You obviously know more about economics than myself.


Tut

The founders did not distinguish between positive and negative rights ,and President Obama is quoted as thinking that is a weakness in the Constitution. Speaking of the Warren Court he said that... [ It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.]

I don't think it a weakness at all .
I think that is an unsustainable prerscription to a failure... as did Frederic Bastiat ,the French classical theorist who wrote:

Here I come into conflict with the most popular prejudices of our day. People not only want the law to be just; they also want it to be philanthropic. They are not satisfied that justice should guarantee to each citizen the free and inoffensive exercise of his faculties for his physical, intellectual, and moral development; they require of it that it should directly spread welfare, education, and morality throughout the country. This is the seductive aspect of socialism.

But, I repeat, these two functions of the law contradict each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free. M. de Lamartine wrote me one day: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program; you have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first half." And, in fact, it is quite impossible for me to separate the word "fraternity" from the word "voluntary." It is quite impossible for me to conceive of fraternity as legally enforced, without liberty being legally destroyed, and justice being legally trampled underfoot.

Bastiat: Selected Essays, Chapter 2, The Law (Cain translation) | Library of Economics and Liberty

As I see one social democracy after another going down the toilet of fiscal collapse ,I can't help but think that is exactly what Bastiat was predicting.

Here we have the nub of the argument, eighteenth century thought is thought to be inviolate, but what was the reality of the eighteenth century, less than a billion people on the Earth, vast parts unexplored and a much more settled society with slavery the cure for poverty, sell yourself into servitude. I prefer a society that takes the responsibility for the poor that the thinkers of the eighteenth century did not

Lol the 19th century thinkers that form the basis of the modern socialist collective state had it so much better ? Many millions of lives have been sacrificed to their utopia.