It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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?
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.
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!
I suppose you would also argue that Isaac Newton "made" gravity and forced the planets to move in a certain way too.
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
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?
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.
If you were being intellectually honest, you would stop calling the socialized programs of wealth redistribution "welfare".
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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!
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)
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?
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.
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.