Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

page: 32
53
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 




And what does this opinion of yours even have in common with the established term "Welfare", and my use of it? Another non-sequitur from you. Sometimes it feels like I am talking to random sentence generator.


I am beginning to believe you have no idea what a non-sequitur is. You accuse me of trolling in my own thread and stupidly accuse me of going off topic, so I point out to you what this thread is predicated on and you call this is non-sequitur. A non-sequitur is a response that is when a conclusion does not follow the premise, genius.

Your indoctrination in what makes law is thoroughly unimpressive. Congress attempted to prohibit alcohol years ago, they passed it as legislation, it was vetoed, then went back to Congress who enacted it, it was challenged as unconstitutional but the SCOTUS upheld it as Constitutional, but nearly 13 years later Congress repealed the 18th Amendment. Why? Because juries refused to convict that is why! So, given that jury nullification is an undeniable right of the people, your indoctrination on civics falls short, and purposely so. You were dumbed down in school, sport. Now you think the only reason you have the right to life is because government allows it.




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by Beanskinner
 


I haven't come across one person here on ATS or in person who would want "tens of millions", or even one person to go hungry, let alone starve to death.
Do you say things like that out of fear? I ask because that's extreme in itself.

In my opinion, the federal government shouldn't be in our Educational system. That should be left to the States. No student loans either. Sure the military could cut quite a lot of expenses and still be the best in the world.
If the over reaching federal government backed away from the welfare system, leaving it to the States and local communites and the State obligated itself to helping those who aren't severely disabled or elderly, to the minimum essentials such as food, clothing, shelter, health department, and daycare for a specific period of time, no less no more, then we could actually sustain the welfare costs without going broke.
Anything else beyond the essentials is up to each individual to obtain through their own resources and/or charity.
I'm curious to what you. think about that?


Not fear, logic, if you you cut off the sole source of revenue for tens of millions of
people, they will be evicted and go hungry. Some might find help or move in with
relatives or find other means which is great, but if America has some 40 million
people on welfare that would equate to nearly 1,000 transient people per zip code.

I simply think some people figure that these people will go somewhere once welfare
disappears. You replace one problem with another and I think the detriments of
creating a massive underclass in the blink of an eye will be awful for America,
far beyond our ability to comprehend. My zip code is 6 small blocks, if I had 1,000
homeless in my zip code there would have to be 5 people sleeping in my yard
and I don't want people in my yard.

Now I really don't understand why you would be for higher loans for college students,
especially when the students are the ones paying that back, it is not welfare.

Truly why you would want students to take twice the amount of debt for a solid degree
makes me wonder about your perception or what you value in the world. You will simply
further enrich the banks and impoverish students with DOUBLE the amount of debt,
based upon current rates.

How is that a righteous idea?
edit on 1-6-2012 by Beanskinner because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




In your limited world view, apparently legislatures enact legislation and "made" law, but then judges unmade this so called "law". It's law, wait no it isn't, wait its law again, oh nope it isn't.


Yes, thats exactly how it is. A law can be changed by those with legislative power. It is possible for something to be legal, and then not, and then again, and then not etc. You say it like its somehow an argument against me, when in fact it only supports what I am saying.



If we are to grant you that governments "make" law then it follows that the Constitution that comes with a Bill of Rights and is declared as the Supreme Law of the Land, necessarily "makes" the enumerated, and of course given the Ninth Amendment, all unenumerated rights law!


Yes, it makes all enumerated, and as written, also unenumerated rights lawful. Your point?



I suppose you would also argue that Isaac Newton "made" gravity and forced the planets to move in a certain way too.


False analogy. Law is prescriptive (cannot be derived from nature), Newtons theories are simply descriptive (can be derived from nature).



Appealing to authority is one thing, naming Wikipedia as that "authority" is an entirely different matter. Since you want to play the appealing to authority game, then let's play!
What is Law?
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right — from God


Stopped reading there. If you want to declare that the source of law and rights is some made up fairy tale being, you have already lost the argument. Deities have no place in rational discussion about secular concepts such as law.

It can, of course, be your opinion that law comes from your favourite deity (which is ridiculous since its clear that in reality, government legislative branch makes laws), but you should at least have enough intellectual honesty to not proclaim it as fact (and laws and rights claimed to be derived from it as absolute), but as your subjective unsupported opinion.

The belief that laws come from metaphysical concepts like "nature", "god" etc. is an unsupported romantic opinion. Useful perhaps, but still a subjective unsupported opinion. In reality, laws are arrived to as a consensus of individuals in human society:

We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe.[/ex]

Currently, the legislators are the ones "sitting at the table" and making laws. This needs no appeal to authority, its simple undeniable fact. From where come the laws, if not from legislators?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Ha ha ha ha! That's exactly how it is, is it? It's law...wait, no it isn't...wait, yes it is...no it isn't...is too...is not...yep...nope....Genius!

We have gravity...not any more its been repealed...nope, it has been reinstated...nope its just been struck down...

Give me a break. I am wasting my time here feeding a troll.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




am beginning to believe you have no idea what a non-sequitur is. You accuse me of trolling in my own thread and stupidly accuse me of going off topic, so I point out to you what this thread is predicated on and you call this is non-sequitur. A non-sequitur is a response that is when a conclusion does not follow the premise, genius.


Yes. Like yours here:


If you were being intellectually honest, you would stop calling the socialized programs of wealth redistribution "welfare".


To which I replied that Welfare is an established term to describe them. You replied:


The thread, created by me, is predicated on the premise that all people are inherently good and understand their relationship to others is a necessary point of survival, but all governments are bad and have no understanding of their dependency upon the people they seek to govern.


Non-sequitur.


A non sequitur ( /ˌnɒnˈsɛkwɨtər/; Latin for It does not follow) is a conversational and literary device, often used for comedic purposes. It is a comment that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it, seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing.


It is unknown what should your premise (which is ridiculous btw, since only Sith deals in such absolutes) have in common with the term "Welfare", and why should your premise be even valid.



Your indoctrination in what makes law is thoroughly unimpressive. Congress attempted to prohibit alcohol years ago, they passed it as legislation, it was vetoed, then went back to Congress who enacted it, it was challenged as unconstitutional but the SCOTUS upheld it as Constitutional, but nearly 13 years later Congress repealed the 18th Amendment. Why? Because juries refused to convict that is why! So, given that jury nullification is an undeniable right of the people, your indoctrination on civics falls short, and purposely so.


I still dont see any "nature" or "god" being the source of law here. I see only people (judicial branch of the government specifically), socially deciding to nullify a previously passed law. Still nothing to prove your original point that law comes from nature and exists independently of peoples opinions as an objective thing.
Law is a social construct.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


False analogy. Again, it is possible to change prescriptive laws, but its not possible to change descriptive laws, since nature (physical laws) cannot be changed. Its called a fact-value distinction (closely related to is-ought problem and naturalistic fallacy).

Learn the difference:

The fact-value distinction is a concept used to distinguish between arguments that can be claimed through reason alone and those in which rationality is limited to describing a collective opinion. In another formulation, it is the distinction between what is (can be discovered by science, philosophy or reason) and what ought to be (a judgment which can be agreed upon by consensus). The terms positive and normative represent another manner of expressing this, as do the terms descriptive and prescriptive, respectively. Positive statements make the implicit claim to facts (e.g. water molecules are made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom), whereas normative statements make a claim to values or to norms (e.g. water ought to be protected from environmental pollution).

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





I still dont see any "nature" or "god" being the source of law here. I see only people (judicial branch of the government specifically), socially deciding to nullify a previously passed law. Still nothing to prove your original point that law comes from nature and exists independently of peoples opinions as an objective thing. Law is a social construct.



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


~The Constitution for the United States of America; Bill of Rights Ninth Amendment~


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


~Article VI~

In order for you argument to hold any water at all you must agree that the Constitution for the United States of America is the supreme law of that land, including the Ninth Amendment which is express in its prohibition of denying or disparaging any rights retained by the people. In order for your argument to hold water you would have to agree with me that the United States, at the very least, recognizes unalienable natural rights as law. Once you agree with me on that, and any intelligent intellectually honest person would have to, all that remains is my argument of universal unalienable rights, and in this it would have to be you arguing only those legislative acts acknowledging the unenumerated rights of people are the only way people can enjoy unalienable rights, which by definition means non-transferable.

No matter how you slice it, you come up short in this debate.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Maslo
 


Ha ha ha ha! That's exactly how it is, is it? It's law...wait, no it isn't...wait, yes it is...no it isn't...is too...is not...yep...nope....Genius!

We have gravity...not any more its been repealed...nope, it has been reinstated...nope its just been struck down...

Give me a break. I am wasting my time here feeding a troll.


So you believe in universal rights aka god-given rights? Who is god then?


If you believe more(or entirely) in god given rights, then why do you also believe so much in a constitution which has been abused to death with commercial codes and misinterpretated amendments? I don't know, seems like conservatives want their cake and eat it too?


And if god given rights are soooooooo important then why bother have any government at all? You are pretty much calling all of the legislative and judicial branchs....... a bunch of buffons!


Too many CONTRADICTIONS!



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


This is funny, your laughing emoticons coming from the genius who actually wanted to argue that a mining community was not commerce.

The point of declaring natural rights as God given, which is a phrase you have imposed upon my argument, not one I used, is to make clear the unalienable nature of rights and that no human has the authority to give these rights to anyone since they all ready have them.

A mining community is not commerce. That argument has been why I've ignored you for this long. A mining community is not commerce. Ha!



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


This is funny, your laughing emoticons coming from the genius who actually wanted to argue that a mining community was not commerce.

The point of declaring natural rights as God given, which is a phrase you have imposed upon my argument, not one I used, is to make clear the unalienable nature of rights and that no human has the authority to give these rights to anyone since they all ready have them.

A mining community is not commerce. That argument has been why I've ignored you for this long. A mining community is not commerce. Ha!


"A mining community is not commerce." WHERE did I ever say that??

Maybe I did but since I am participating in something like 10 threads, it is dificult to keep track of who said what, so please refresh my memory. Probably someone ELSE said that........


Otherwise I will accuse you of putting words into my mouth which is dishonest.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
You guys wanna know sumthin? Of course you don't, nobody cares what I think. Oh well, I'm gonna say it anyway because a portion of you will more than likely read it even if you don't give a crap.

The constitution is the problem! There I said it, and you are now p!$$ed. Right?
Big business and politicians have been permitted to walk around and all over that ting for how long now? I don't see any of you or anyone else for that matter doing anything about it. So why shouldn't the people also be allowed to ignore that ancient document? Tell me why big business is better than you and I. Tell me why people complain about too big to fail but act as if they support the idea.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Here is where you make the lame argument. In your hopeless attempt to declare capitalism "waaayyyyy" older than corporations.

Just click your name under the reply to read your own post.





edit on 1-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Here is where you make the lame argument. In your hopeless attempt to declare capitalism "waaayyyyy" older than corporations.

Just click your name under the reply to read your own post.

edit on 1-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)


It is obvious you did not comprehend my post correctly because I never implied what you are accusing me off.


Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

quoted from your source "The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. "

Oldest commercial corporations are what we are talking about. Not some other vague meanings!

Capitalism is wwwaaaaayyyyy older than corporatism. Going back to ancient egypt and sumeria people traded with gold and silver coins in small villages. Each person was a propriator or perhaps partnerships.

It seems you cannot get anything correct most of the time. Maybe you need to go back to some PUBLIC school while they still exist?


To the contrary I AGREED with your source and you probably did NOT even read what you quoted.

You falsely made the claim that commercial corporations are ancient and I pointed out to you that ONLY the term "corporation" ITSELF is ancient. Commercial corporations started in 1347 with that minning facility!

Reread that post if you must.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The Constitution, and those rights it protects, did not come from nature or from god. It was arrived upon as a social consensus. Invented by men, not discovered. A social construct.

No matter how you slice it, you come up short in this debate.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You do the research. The last time I did some "digging" like you suggested you just simply dismissed that research and kept reifying. If you can prove capitalism predates corporations then prove it.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You do the research. The last time I did some "digging" like you suggested you just simply dismissed that research and kept reifying. If you can prove capitalism predates corporations then prove it.



Well they certainly did not have socialism or communism since the communist manifesto came about in the mid 19th century....so that one is rulled out.

Second they did not have anarchy............so that is ruled out

What is left then?

And commercial corporations started in 1347......................

it must be capitalism! Even a high school graduate can figure it out, and yet here I am debating with someone with supposedly superior knowledge. I got fooled, can I have my time back?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The Constitution, and those rights it protects, did not come from nature or from god. It was arrived upon as a social consensus. Invented by men, not discovered. A social construct.

No matter how you slice it, you come up short in this debate.


And probably written by the third eye of horus masons with european banking interests............

tons of commercial codes added and a first ammendment that was interpretated as "money=fos".



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


That's your idea of proving capitalism predates corporations? Declaring that there was no communism or socialism before Marx? Really? Nice research, man. Fail!!!!






top topics



 
53
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join