PDA

View Full Version : Gene Healy: Repeal the 17th Amendment



malloc
06-08-2010, 07:06 PM
Quick, what's the 17th Amendment? Good on you if you didn't need a lifeline: It's the one that mandated direct election of senators, instead of having them appointed by state legislatures.

Thanks to the wonderfully impertinent Tea Partiers, that 1913 "reform" is no longer just the stuff of trivia -- it recently made headlines in House and Senate races.

Two Republican nominees for House seats -- Ohio's Steve Strivers and Idaho's Raul Labrador -- have expressed sympathy for repeal. And Tim Bridgewater, one of two Tea Party candidates who last month knocked off sitting Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, argues that "if the states elected their senators, legislative monstrosities like ObamaCare or [No Child Left Behind], with their burdensome mandates, would never see the light of day."

Predictably, the liberal intelligentsia has responded with scorn. Of all the "goofy ideas from those lovable wacky Tea Partyers [sic]," John Aloysius Farrell writes at USNews.com, this is the "stupidest." Repeal talk is "truly regressive," even "Paleolithic," Timothy Egan seethes in Sunday's New York Times.

Apparently, the only thing worse than peasants with pitchforks is peasants with pocket Constitutions.

But there's nothing silly or retrograde in deploring the effects of an amendment that has done untold damage to federalism and limited government.

"Let the state legislatures appoint the Senate," Virginia's George Mason urged at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, lest a newly empowered federal government "swallow up the state legislatures." The motion carried unanimously after Mason's remarks.

LINK FOR MORE (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Repeal-the-17th-Amendment_-95804129.html#ixzz0qIliVqbL)

I like that this argument is resurfacing. The 17th Amendment was one of the biggest mistakes this country ever made. It needs to be repealed.

noonwitch
06-09-2010, 10:03 AM
I think that the american people today prefer to vote for their senators. It's not going to be a left/right issue, because most people on both sides are going to be against repealing the 17th amendment.

The effort to repeal the 17th amendment will be viewed as taking away a right, not as restoring the intent of the founders, even though that's what the repeal would accomplish.

FeebMaster
06-09-2010, 10:53 AM
The 17th has been around for almost a century. It's a bedrock principle of government now and isn't going anywhere. No different than Social Security, the income tax, and the national firearms act.

fettpett
06-09-2010, 09:31 PM
yeah...like the Senators appointed by the states were much better :rolleyes:

PoliCon
06-09-2010, 09:37 PM
I'd rather see the 16th amendment repealed.

fettpett
06-09-2010, 09:58 PM
I'd rather see the 16th amendment repealed.

completely agree. Get them out of my pocketbook. I'd rather pay a consumption tax.

malloc
06-09-2010, 10:58 PM
yeah...like the Senators appointed by the states were much better :rolleyes:

There are several reasons it's much better practice to have Senators appointed by the states. For instance, all unfunded state mandates wouldn't have a prayer of passing the Senate. Usurpation of state power by the Federal Government would be much less if the senator's had to answer to the state's legislative body, so the 10th Amendment would still mean something. This is the very reason the founder's were smart to have the senators selected by the state legislatures. Now, state governments have no voice in the legislative process.

This guy explains it better.



Let’s look at this a different way. Under the Constitution as originally written, the three “political” bodies in the federal government – the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President – were all beholden to different constituencies and power bases. The House of Representatives was the “people’s house.” Every member of the House was (and still is) directly elected by the people in their district. The House, then, was designed to be beholden to the popular whims and to represent the voice of popular majorities. The Senate was the “states’ house.” In representing the interests of the state governments, the Senate was not beholden to the people or to popular pressure. Indeed, most states directed their senators in terms of how they were to vote on particular bills. As originally intended, therefore, for a bill to pass Congress, it had to meet the approval of both the people (the House) and the states (the Senate). Then, the bill had to be approved by the President, an official who has no permanent constituency at all and is instead elected by the Electoral College, a body which exists only temporarily to elect the President and Vice President and then vanishes for four years. Only if a bill was acceptable to three different bodies with three separate constituencies did it become law.

LINK (http://florida.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/repeal-the-17th/)


I think the founders knew what they were doing when they setup the Senate as the state's house.


The 17th has been around for almost a century. It's a bedrock principle of government now and isn't going anywhere. No different than Social Security, the income tax, and the national firearms act.

Unfortunately this is correct. The Tea Party mentality would have to infect every political body in Washington in order to affect actual "change" in government.


I'd rather see the 16th amendment repealed.

Yeah, 1913 was a bad year as both of these amendments were passed that year. I would like to see this amendment disappear as well.

fettpett
06-10-2010, 03:23 PM
but see the problem with having state legislature select the Senator is that you end up with a very convoluted system and a lot of animosity/time taken up at the State level having a Senator appointed that could be spent doing other stuff, espeically with the limited time that many of them are in session and the budget issues that a lot of States have.

If you look the the history that lead up to the 17th amendment, Starting in 1820's (while many of the founders were still alive) there were calls for reform in how Senators were elected. There were times when Senate seats were left open for years at a time while fights between parties in states went back and forth. for example 1850's Indian had an open seat for 2 YEARS while Democrats and Republicans fought over who would be elected. Post Civil War you see many of the same fights.

There was a lot of scandals involving Senators particularly bribery. Delaware went 4 YEARS before appointing a Senator in the late 1890's. There were many open seats during the 1870's to 1910's. Imagine how much worse it would be today if Senators were appointed still, particularly with he 24/hr New cycle.

Whats Ironic is the Tea party members advocating repeal of the 17th are from areas that pioneered direct election of Senators.

malloc
06-10-2010, 05:15 PM
I'm aware of and understand the problems direct election was implemented to solve. I think most of those problems could be solved with procedure at the state level. However, the problems direct election has created seem to be much worse, in my opinion, that a single state or two not able to get their act together long enough to get two men to D.C.

marinejcksn
06-10-2010, 05:21 PM
I'd rather pay a consumption tax.

Didn't you head? Bamy is planning on giving out a nice fat VAT tax. Oh, wait....:mad:

fettpett
06-10-2010, 05:47 PM
Didn't you head? Bamy is planning on giving out a nice fat VAT tax. Oh, wait....:mad:

no....not that bullshit...need to get rid of the income tax first then put in the Fair Tax

marinejcksn
06-11-2010, 10:45 AM
no....not that bullshit...need to get rid of the income tax first then put in the Fair Tax

Right on. A fair or flat tax is the way to go. This VAT stuff scares the bejeezus outta me. Can you imagine an additional 5-10% tacked on to every level of production?

fettpett
06-11-2010, 11:24 PM
Right on. A fair or flat tax is the way to go. This VAT stuff scares the bejeezus outta me. Can you imagine an additional 5-10% tacked on to every level of production?

God...like things aren't expensive enough...The concept of a VAT is like saying a wart is a pimple. sticks around and takes a shit ton of work to get rid of.

With the Fair Tax you get a known amount of money every year..can't spend more than you get. Prices will come down as you don't have to pay sales tax at every level

FeebMaster
06-12-2010, 12:33 AM
but see the problem with having state legislature select the Senator is that you end up with a very convoluted system and a lot of animosity/time taken up at the State level having a Senator appointed that could be spent doing other stuff, espeically with the limited time that many of them are in session and the budget issues that a lot of States have.

If you look the the history that lead up to the 17th amendment, Starting in 1820's (while many of the founders were still alive) there were calls for reform in how Senators were elected. There were times when Senate seats were left open for years at a time while fights between parties in states went back and forth. for example 1850's Indian had an open seat for 2 YEARS while Democrats and Republicans fought over who would be elected. Post Civil War you see many of the same fights.

There was a lot of scandals involving Senators particularly bribery. Delaware went 4 YEARS before appointing a Senator in the late 1890's. There were many open seats during the 1870's to 1910's. Imagine how much worse it would be today if Senators were appointed still, particularly with he 24/hr New cycle.

Whats Ironic is the Tea party members advocating repeal of the 17th are from areas that pioneered direct election of Senators.

You say all of that like it's a bad thing.

malloc
06-12-2010, 09:40 AM
God...like things aren't expensive enough...The concept of a VAT is like saying a wart is a pimple. sticks around and takes a shit ton of work to get rid of.

With the Fair Tax you get a known amount of money every year..can't spend more than you get. Prices will come down as you don't have to pay sales tax at every level

I'd much rather see a fair tax scheme than a flat tax scheme, but anything besides this IRS behemoth would be better. A fair tax scheme makes much more sense economically. Any tax on income is basically a tax on production, while the fair tax seems to be more of a tax on consumption. When you tax something you get less of it.

m00
06-12-2010, 12:13 PM
completely agree. Get them out of my pocketbook. I'd rather pay a consumption tax.

I'd rather not pay any taxes.

PoliCon
06-12-2010, 12:20 PM
I'd rather not pay any taxes.

I'm of the FF school of thought on taxes . . . . avoid them any way you can!

m00
06-12-2010, 12:39 PM
I'm of the FF school of thought on taxes . . . . avoid them any way you can!

I've just never witnessed any tax money above the state/local level do anything positive to any real degree. In fact, the farther up the chain you get the more money gets collected and the less I see of it. I understand the community I live in needs sheriff, and a firehouse. Trash collection is a service I don't mind paying for. I can live with a local public library (although I never use it). I can live with money going to a park service.

Feeb would probably argue these things make me a socialist, and he's right. There's no difference between government spending a dollar on a local fire brigade and a dollar on welfare, other than where you want government to spend other people's money.

But when I look at the entire "tax pie" all of these things that I want to "socialize" (sanitation, police and fire services, roads, water, and parks) add up to a very, very, very small slice.

So I think there's really two separate issues going on.


How much of every dollar you earn goes to taxes?
How much of every tax dollar the government collects, gets spent in a manner that actually improves your life?


I think what Democrats don't understand is that it doesn't matter how many bags-with-dollar-signs get looted from the homes of the upper-middle and upper class, if government just blows the money on boondoggles that don't actually benefit individual Americans. #2 actually pisses me off a lot more than #1... it's not that the government is robbing us, but it's that they are squandering our money.

Basically, it's a value proposition. If I could walk down the street and say "that lamppost, that fire hydrant, that public school, etc, etc... all add up to every dollar the government takes" I could at least see how my money, taken by the government, was benefiting me. This is what I call socialism.

But if you walk down the street, and can't see where your tax dollars are going, and don't get pissed off at government - this isn't socialism, this is idiocy.

fettpett
06-12-2010, 02:41 PM
I'd rather not pay any taxes.

I'd rather NOT pay any taxes as well, but there is a need for them, on both local/state and Federal levels.

The Federal Government needs money to function, there isn't any way around this. What I'd prefer in a tax system is one that is fair and works to not only keep Federal Spending in line but one that also Boosts the economy. Without passing anyother laws, the Federal Government would have to reign in spending and stay within budget because there is only one place that Money is coming from besides maybe tariffs.

warpig
06-12-2010, 04:59 PM
How much of every dollar you earn goes to taxes?

Tax Freedom Day will arrive on April 9 this year, the 99th day of 2010, according to our annual calculation using the latest government data on income and taxes. Americans will work well over three months of the year—from January 1 to April 9—before they have earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, state and local levels.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

m00
06-12-2010, 05:03 PM
The Federal Government needs money to function, there isn't any way around this.

Why would I want the Federal Government to function?

So it can spy on me, and search me at airports, and exert control over me?
So it can redistribute my wealth to everything from failing banks to researchers who are trying to prove global warming?
So it can regulate what I put in my body, and the deprive me of my rights and confine me to horrible places if I ingest something it doesn't like?
So it can have money printed at a whim to cover its own debts - the same money that I am forced to obtain only by working hard, that it still takes from me?
So it can "project force" in dark corners of the globe, for esoteric policy reasons that suit lobbyists and facilitate trade agreements?
So it can make laws that control every facet of my life?

Yes, I realize Federal Government needs my money to do these things. I wonder, if faced with a robber, you would hand him a gun because he needs it to rob you.

fettpett
06-13-2010, 12:06 PM
Why would I want the Federal Government to function?

So it can spy on me, and search me at airports, and exert control over me?
So it can redistribute my wealth to everything from failing banks to researchers who are trying to prove global warming?
So it can regulate what I put in my body, and the deprive me of my rights and confine me to horrible places if I ingest something it doesn't like?
So it can have money printed at a whim to cover its own debts - the same money that I am forced to obtain only by working hard, that it still takes from me?
So it can "project force" in dark corners of the globe, for esoteric policy reasons that suit lobbyists and facilitate trade agreements?
So it can make laws that control every facet of my life?

Yes, I realize Federal Government needs my money to do these things. I wonder, if faced with a robber, you would hand him a gun because he needs it to rob you.


so you want to go back to the EXTREMELY ineffective Articles of Confederation? good luck with that one


By saying that the Federal Government needs money to function I'm talking about Functioning within the Parameters of the Constitution. The Fair Tax or something similar will do this as it will reign in spending on this crap. They'll (Congress) have a budget they HAVE to follow as there will be a set amount of money that is predictable each and every year. They can adjust how much of the slice is dolled out every year, but not start printing money just willy nillly, because they wont be able to say "We'll get it from increasing Income Taxes." They can come up with other taxes but if Income/Business Taxes are pretty much done away with by going to the Fair Tax, they wont hurt as much.

Besides we could always word the reappeal of the 16th Amendment to say that the Federal Government can not raise Any Taxes (other than tariffs) more than a X% every year or so. Personally say no more than 5%

Lager
06-13-2010, 01:36 PM
There's no difference between government spending a dollar on a local fire brigade and a dollar on welfare, other than where you want government to spend other people's money.


Although I might agree with many points in your post, I have to take special exception to the point above. I would say there is a world of difference. In fact, I would also say the difference is as vast as the gulf between opposing philosophies of governance.

I don't fall for the fallacious argument that a few of our resident lefties often make, that because we may support taxation for roads or libraries or other basic utility services, then there is no difference say, in supporting taxation for universal health care.

If you look at socialism as "cooperative management of the means of production and the allocation of resources"... you are not divying up and awarding me fire protection because I am a member of a particular group the government has decided to reward; I am paying for a service that I need, whether that service comes from a private or public company.

PoliCon
06-13-2010, 02:52 PM
Feeb would probably argue these things make me a socialist, and he's right. There's no difference between government spending a dollar on a local fire brigade and a dollar on welfare, other than where you want government to spend other people's money.Bullshit. Claiming that supporting providing police and fire services etc through tax dollars is socialist is absolutely asinine. :rolleyes: Comparing these services that benefit ALL CITIZENS EQUALLY with entitlements that benefit a few is ridiculous on it's face. First off - police coverage does not take money from the pocket of one person and put it into the pocket of another without an exchange of labor -police and fireman provide a service to the community and work for their paychecks. Entitlements are nothing more than an attempt to redistribute wealth. People do not WORK for entitlements.

m00
06-13-2010, 04:09 PM
Bullshit. Claiming that supporting providing police and fire services etc through tax dollars is socialist is absolutely asinine.

How? It's a common service paid for out of everyone's tax dollars, whether any individual likes it or not. It's the definition of socialism. That it may be necessary, doesn't make it any less so.


Comparing these services that benefit ALL CITIZENS EQUALLY with entitlements that benefit a few is ridiculous on it's face.

My house has never caught on fire. I have never lived in a city that suffered a major fire while I was there. How can you claim fire services benefit all citizens equally? You might say "well, if your house ever did catch on fire you would be thankful it's there" but how is this different from the most hardcore leftie saying the same about welfare? Think about it.

Other than saying "I value police/fire services, and I do not value welfare" how is one substantively different than the other?


First off - police coverage does not take money from the pocket of one person and put it into the pocket of another without an exchange of labor -police and fireman provide a service to the community and work for their paychecks. Entitlements are nothing more than an attempt to redistribute wealth. People do not WORK for entitlements.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. It's city/state contracts, so it probably comes down to how corrupt the local government is. I've lived in places where the cops were genuine assets to the community and I felt a sense of security when they passed by, and I've also lived in places where it felt like the force was filled up with somebody's nephews and cousins. But my point isn't that there is value, my point is that it's money taken from my pocket that I just "accept" because I've never lived in a world where government hasn't taken money to provide such services (fire, police, sanitation, etc). And deep down I consider those things necessary on some fundamental level. But again, this is what socialism is about. It's just a matter of degree, and what you want the "common tax" to pay for.

m00
06-13-2010, 04:27 PM
I don't fall for the fallacious argument that a few or our resident lefties often make, that because we may support taxation for roads or libraries or other basic utility services, then there is no difference say, in supporting taxation for universal health care.

I never said there was no difference. Obviously, there's a difference - it's a matter of degree (roads and basic services don't cost nearly as much and welfare and universal health care), and also its a matter of personal values.

However, it's obvious to me that they're all forms of socialism. This is neither a good thing or a bad thing, it just is. In the mid 1800s on frontier towns, you got a sheriff because the local store owners got together and hired one. So it's not like a "given" that government does such things. I'm not saying we should go back to that, it's become very convenient to pay taxes and just have basic services magically happen.

However, I also think it's a slippery slope. Read the last line of the last paragraph and realize that's the problem. The "serious" socialism - welfare, universal health care - happen gradually over time as notions that slowly entered the mainstream consciousness. I think this occurred because the goalposts of socialism kept moving into more and more extremes. And I also think this is how liberals are winning.

Consider this: unless we manage to change the course of things, in 50 years, universal health-care might not be considered socialism - it might just be "normal." REAL socialism in 2060 will be universal housing, or universal employment, or something as equally ridiculous. On a futuristic message board somewhere, a poster will say "universal health-care is socialism!" and all the righties will tell him he's wrong, and that it's just a basic service. ;)

PoliCon
06-13-2010, 07:39 PM
How? It's a common service paid for out of everyone's tax dollars, whether any individual likes it or not. It's the definition of socialism. That it may be necessary, doesn't make it any less so. NO - that's the definition of COMMUNITY.




My house has never caught on fire. I have never lived in a city that suffered a major fire while I was there. How can you claim fire services benefit all citizens equally? You might say "well, if your house ever did catch on fire you would be thankful it's there" but how is this different from the most hardcore leftie saying the same about welfare? Think about it. Welfare is wealth redistribution. Are you going to claim that fire service is wealth redistribution as well? If welfare were just the safety net the left likes to claim it is - then you could compare the two - but it's not. It's a way of life. Furthermore, as I said previously - welfare is money given for doing nothing. It is wealth redistribution. Fire service is a community service. Whether or not you have benefited directly it does not change the fact that it benefits all citizens equally. When you have the need, they are there to serve and by doing so protect all. BTW - almost all small towns, villiages, etc have VOLUNTEER fire services. The paid fire services are in the large town and cities and are paid services because the people of that town or city voted to make them paid services.


Other than saying "I value police/fire services, and I do not value welfare" how is one substantively different than the other?See above.




Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. It's city/state contracts, so it probably comes down to how corrupt the local government is. I've lived in places where the cops were genuine assets to the community and I felt a sense of security when they passed by, and I've also lived in places where it felt like the force was filled up with somebody's nephews and cousins. But my point isn't that there is value, my point is that it's money taken from my pocket that I just "accept" because I've never lived in a world where government hasn't taken money to provide such services (fire, police, sanitation, etc). And deep down I consider those things necessary on some fundamental level. But again, this is what socialism is about. It's just a matter of degree, and what you want the "common tax" to pay for. If the citizenry allows the public services to become corrupt - that's on them. It does not make what they do any less a public service. People on welfare are not performing a public service. They are getting money for doing NOTHING. Socialism is government control of production and wealth redistribution. It is a way-stop on the road to Communism. It is a means unto an ends not an end unto itself.

Public services are not about wealth redistribution. They are not about taking money from one persona and putting it into the pockets of another person without some service being provided. Being public does not make something automatically socialist and it's asinine that people are buying into this bullshit.

m00
06-13-2010, 08:25 PM
NO - that's the definition of COMMUNITY.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism


1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


So, oddly enough, you're actually agreeing with me. Socialism is community ownership. What we're arguing over is degrees of socialism.

I want to stress again, before things get heated, that I am opposed to government welfare and I also find it highly convenient to be able to pay for basic services with my taxes.


Welfare is wealth redistribution. Are you going to claim that fire service is wealth redistribution as well? If welfare were just the safety net the left likes to claim it is - then you could compare the two - but it's not. It's a way of life. Furthermore, as I said previously - welfare is money given for doing nothing. It is wealth redistribution. Fire service is a community service. Whether or not you have benefited directly it does not change the fact that it benefits all citizens equally. When you have the need, they are there to serve and by doing so protect all. BTW - almost all small towns, villiages, etc have VOLUNTEER fire services. The paid fire services are in the large town and cities and are paid services because the people of that town or city voted to make them paid services.

I bolded what I found particularly interesting in the above paragraph. Notice how one could say exactly the same thing about welfare, merely by replacing words - Welfare is a community service. Whether or not you have benefited directly it does not change the fact that it benefits all citizens equally. When you have the need, it is there to help and by doing so helps all.

That such a simple word replacement is possible means the concept of welfare is structurally identical to the concept of other services. Which means in the end, the only difference between government service A and government service B is a value judgment. It's the difference between saying "I don't drive a car, I drive a hybrid" vs "I am making a value judgment that hybrids are better than other cars."


If the citizenry allows the public services to become corrupt - that's on them. It does not make what they do any less a public service. People on welfare are not performing a public service. They are getting money for doing NOTHING. Socialism is government control of production and wealth redistribution. It is a way-stop on the road to Communism. It is a means unto an ends not an end unto itself.

You're right that socialism is on the path to communism. That this is true doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand when debating what exactly socialism is, and means, and whether or not we are engaging in it.


Public services are not about wealth redistribution. They are not about taking money from one persona and putting it into the pockets of another person without some service being provided.

Having grown up outside of DC, I have a number of friends that work for the Federal Government. I honestly don't know what services they provide, and in fact, I joke with them that their jobs are white collar welfare. Which they aren't very happy about, but then they shouldn't brag to me about half-assing a 37.5 hour work week and goofing around at the office because it's nearly impossible to fire someone.

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

That's a list of government agencies. Are all of those things really necessary? Note what Obama has recently done -" Executive Order-- Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council." Who do you think pays for those jobs? Taxpayers. Don't tell me it's not socialism when the Federal Government has 2 million civilian employees, most of whom manage grants and contracts where the Federal Government is using our tax dollars to pick winners in the private sector for all sorts of absurd reasons. How many billions does the government spend a year in grants and contracts (excluding defense)? More than it should.

So whats the difference between 2 million civilian employees of the Federal Government, and the local fire precinct? Just scale, and value.


Being public does not make something automatically socialist and it's asinine that people are buying into this bullshit.

I don't know what "bullshit" you are talking about. I have an opinion, and here it is.

PoliCon
06-13-2010, 10:53 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism


1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


So, oddly enough, you're actually agreeing with me. Socialism is community ownership. What we're arguing over is degrees of socialism.

Your source and your definition are both - to be quite blunt - CRAP. :rolleyes: Let us go to an academic rather than a pulp source for the definition of the term. Dictionary.com is not noted for either accuracy or thoroughness in their definitions.


SOCIALISM:

n.

1. A political and economic theory of social reorganization, the essential feature of which is governmental control of economic activities, to the end that competition shall give way to cooperation an the opportunities of life and the rewards of labor shall be equitable apportioned.

2. Policy and practice accordant with socialistic theory.

3. Disposition to seek social reforms through political agencies ; the character shown in this disposition ; - opp. to individualism

(Websters Collegiate Dictionary - 4th edition) Public services do not equal socialism any more than stores equal capitalism.


I want to stress again, before things get heated, that I am opposed to government welfare and I also find it highly convenient to be able to pay for basic services with my taxes.




I bolded what I found particularly interesting in the above paragraph. Notice how one could say exactly the same thing about welfare, merely by replacing words - Welfare is a community service. Whether or not you have benefited directly it does not change the fact that it benefits all citizens equally. When you have the need, it is there to help and by doing so helps all.

That such a simple word replacement is possible means the concept of welfare is structurally identical to the concept of other services. Which means in the end, the only difference between government service A and government service B is a value judgment. It's the difference between saying "I don't drive a car, I drive a hybrid" vs "I am making a value judgment that hybrids are better than other cars." The text you bolded skips right past the salient point that welfare is wealth redistribution. Police and fire services are not. And I fail to see how taking money that I worked for and giving it to someone else who has not worked for it is a community service that benefits me at all let alone equally. You could make a case for a safety net that would benefit all members of the community - but that is not what we currently have. We have a system that rewards sloth and punishes industry. Welfare has become a way of life. When people live from government check to government check without giving any kind of labor for what they have received - that's not benefiting the people paying - only those who sit back, relax and collect. So no matter how you try to spin it - how you try to wiggle it in - welfare is not something that benefits all citizens equally.




You're right that socialism is on the path to communism. That this is true doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand when debating what exactly socialism is, and means, and whether or not we are engaging in it.Nor does it mean that anything that is publicly funded is necessarily socialist. :rolleyes:




Having grown up outside of DC, I have a number of friends that work for the Federal Government. I honestly don't know what services they provide, and in fact, I joke with them that their jobs are white collar welfare. Which they aren't very happy about, but then they shouldn't brag to me about half-assing a 37.5 hour work week and goofing around at the office because it's nearly impossible to fire someone.

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

That's a list of government agencies. Are all of those things really necessary? Note what Obama has recently done -" Executive Order-- Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council." Who do you think pays for those jobs? Taxpayers. Don't tell me it's not socialism when the Federal Government has 2 million civilian employees, most of whom manage grants and contracts where the Federal Government is using our tax dollars to pick winners in the private sector for all sorts of absurd reasons. How many billions does the government spend a year in grants and contracts (excluding defense)? More than it should.

So whats the difference between 2 million civilian employees of the Federal Government, and the local fire precinct? Just scale, and value.
and who benefits - and to what degree. Once again, publicly funded does not mean socialist. You look at those agencies and you can see many that are constitutionally beyond the scope of the federal government - but that does not make them necessarily socialist. They become socialist when they become a means of wealth redistribution or a manifestation of government control of the means of production.



I don't know what "bullshit" you are talking about. I have an opinion, and here it is.
Bullshit is the idiotic idea that public means socialist - if that's your opinion, then your opinion is bullshit.

PoliCon
06-13-2010, 10:54 PM
BTW m00 - are you done changing your ID? How many different handles you gonna make?

m00
06-14-2010, 02:47 PM
BTW m00 - are you done changing your ID? How many different handles you gonna make?

What the hell are you talking about?

m00
06-14-2010, 02:48 PM
Bullshit is the idiotic idea that public means socialist - if that's your opinion, then your opinion is bullshit.

All hail the modern conservative!

fettpett
06-14-2010, 06:59 PM
you realize that the reason people didn't want police was because they viewed it as a standing military. That's the reason why they weren't even allowed to carry a firearm until the 20th Century, thus the "Billie Club". People didn't object to them because of the cost or thinking they were socialist. This is why companies like the Pinkerton's came about, Private citizens were allowed to, and encouraged to carry, and were deputized.