Is the Preamble to the Constitution a declaration of Socialism?

reply to post by trumpet

No it generally isn't, but I see why you may think that.

The most amazing thing to me is how the preamble to the US Constitution is considered actual authorization of socialist programs. Its laughable, yet judges actually think this stuff.

Oh, you wrote this law for my general welfare? Okay, I can do whatever I want now because general welfare covers everything. Uh, no. That is a statement of WHY you wrote the law. It isn't the law. Do I have to go on? I guess I do because people think this stuff. Okay, so if I say, here little Jonny, I want you to be happy so here is $10 to spend. Thanks dad, now I can use the $10 to get my friend to punch you in the face... that would make me happy. Well no, telling you why you are doing something is kind of irrelevant to what they are actually permitted to do. This is real innovation in reasoning and hopefully people who think Social Security is a constitutional program can innovate with their reasoning.

Yeah I think if the constitution needs a provision for the United States to provide mail service, it also needs a provision before it provides a retirement fund service, which is obviously a bigger deal. I think if the constitution needs a special provision to outlaw alcohol then it also needs one to outlaw any other food or drug including crack coc aine. States of course may have more leeway by their own constitutions.

US judges live on another planet. Their reasoning is alien to me. I guess other people have an ability to believe what they merely want to be true that I simply don't have regardless of whether it is the polar opposite of the truth.

reply to post by OrphanApology

Not necessarily. Of course, the original constitution was aimed toward land owning white males so it really doesn't matter what their intent was, it was self destructive because of the hypocrisy...

That is because the land owning white males were the only literate human beings at the time.

John Adams, the 2nd president of the united States, was against universal suffrage because he was of the opinion that the uneducated masses were too easily swayed by demagogues.

How can I not see the humor in the fact that the more voting rights were extended to certain classes, the more the actual behavior of the government has trended toward socialism.

NOT words, but behaviors.

The founding fathers were adamantly against democracy.

They called it the tyranny of the masses.

Before you start trashing the white male land owners that created the US, maybe take time to read the federalist and anti-federalist papers to see what you are missing.

Because you are missing a whole helluva lot.

reply to post by OrphanApology


Why do say that when you don't have clue what socialism is.

Everyone needs to understand that we as a socialistic country. The only question is what things do we want to remain in the private sector and what things do we want controlled by society. People tend to make these fallacious arguments over ideological ideas they don't understand.

We are a socialist because we have:
1. an army
2. a police force
3. a court system
4. citizen protections
5. Public roads
6. an organized society.

We control our socialism through democracy and representation. We only decide the amount not fact that we are socialistic.

These arguments are generated on behalf of the rich who don't want to support the infrastructure to run their business or for monopolies to decrease regulation. Both of these are just different angles to maximize profits.

Unfortunately small minded or programmed people get tied up in these false ideas. Most don't even understand that socialism and communism are two different things or that communism does not and has never existed in a large society.

iRoyalty
reply to post by trumpet

 

The founding father weren't too particular to privatisation, I believe they described a private own banking system more dangerous than a standing army.

Umm, you mean a privately-owned *Central* Bank. Big difference. They had no issues at all with privatization & in all respects preferred it over public (government) ownership (control).

Socialism in it's true form is an economic method in which the means of production are owned by the worker either collectively or individually. Socialism began to differ in definition nearly at the onset of it's birth. Most Socialists today are sticklers for it's original intention which is what I define it as. Others that claim they are Socialist believe in a centrally planned economy. The preamble has nothing to do with economy.

What I think you are asking is whether the Founding Fathers were more collectivist than individualist and I think people don't understand that either. Anarchists...more aptly named Libertarian Socialists, like myself, believe in worker owned means of production as an economic model, we believe in non-exploitation and democratically decided upon societal standards based on non-exploitation, we believe that liberty can't exist if exploitation does. I think this is what the Founders had in mind even though at the time they didn't recognize anyone but white males as entitled to liberty.

ETA: I think if you want to further understand the reasoning of the Founders, look up the Age of Enlightenment.

Nephalim
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Whats the alternative? We don't need to know the problem we need to know the solution.
Telling people to "go work" is not the solution. If it were as simple as "go work" a person could "go work" whenever they pleased and get money right?

What can you think of to establish what I just said because that's all your pushing for, go work. Ok, well there are all types of "work." I'm working right now because I'm thinking and typing. You and I are discussing an issue, that's work. Work = the expenditure of time&energy in order to accomplish a task. That task must be of worth or value for compensation. Why are we typing for free and discussing this issue right now? We don't get paid for it, even under a capitalist system.

I don't believe the constitution is a socialist document Op.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it.

At this point I think we're too far down the rabbit hole to do anything original and history will repeat itself.

Our options are:

1. Slash welfare and allow the unemployment benefits to expire.
2. Keep the welfare going and simply place everyone into a public assistance category until supplies and goods run out.
3. Place those unwilling to work into labor camps. Place those who are unable to work in a furnace. (Similar to the quote from famed Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw in my signature.)

Just as there will always be greedy misers who take large profits, pay workers low wages, and over price consumers there will be low life's who game the welfare system. Over time if you do not rid society of either of these people, that society will eventually be entirely comprised of a perception of those who have too much and those as doing too little. Those who don't work will become enviable of the nice things the workers have, and those who work will become apathetic about those who live off other people's sweat and toils.

The answer? Let the churches, foundations, and local communities handle welfare and shelters. The system is much harder to game when the support is coming from a person who knows your name, can look you in the eye, and knows how often you waste charity on booze, women, drugs, and loafing. If government is in charge of these things, it's only a matter of time before camps and furnaces must be used to achieve an efficient economic homeostasis. The latter has happened in every single welfare state that's every tried it.

reply to post by trumpet


Not at all, the wording infers that the USA is a Republic which is what it was founded as.

kyviecaldges
reply to post by OrphanApology

 

Not necessarily. Of course, the original constitution was aimed toward land owning white males so it really doesn't matter what their intent was, it was self destructive because of the hypocrisy...

That is because the land owning white males were the only literate human beings at the time.

John Adams, the 2nd president of the united States, was against universal suffrage because he was of the opinion that the uneducated masses were too easily swayed by demagogues.

How can I not see the humor in the fact that the more voting rights were extended to certain classes, the more the actual behavior of the government has trended toward socialism.

NOT words, but behaviors.

The founding fathers were adamantly against democracy.

They called it the tyranny of the masses.

Before you start trashing the white male land owners that created the US, maybe take time to read the federalist and anti-federalist papers to see what you are missing.

Because you are missing a whole helluva lot.

edit on 12/1/2014 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.

Yeaa, I'm not so sure about all of that. If we're reading the federalists papers with no thought of the six nations we're missing something there too possibly? I highly doubt they hated democracy. I think what they hated was the thought of its abuse. We also know a republic can be abused too. Both of which depend on the nature of our "tribe" and the persons we elect as "council" or "chieftain." Some of your thought went into that right? "behavior"

The point you rebutted may have stemmed from a certain absence at the Treaty of Paris. With that in mind, those absent were present at other major conventions though prior and post and most certainly present at least spirit in the words of the constitution. Democracy was here and helped to serve as a model. Lets give credit where its due.

ketsuko
reply to post by Treespeaker

 

The problem with the safety net is that it's all or nothing here. You are either all in or you are all out. There are a lot of people who are pretty much trapped. They could get a worthwhile job and start making themselves independent, but if they do, the lose a lot from the state - all or nothing. What they would receive from the job they could get to start out with wouldn't go anywhere near replacing what they would lose in benefits value.

For example, there are some numbers that show that a single of mother of three in Connecticut working full-time minimum wage and working the system for all it can provide can get enough in benefits that she winds up with more disposable income than a family of four making $64K/year. Now, if she makes a little too much, she starts losing those benefits and it won't be at all comparable to what she had before, so she is disincentivized to better herself. Considering the average income in the US is between $50 and $55K/year, she is going to go backwards for long time, maybe forever, before she has a chance of going forward again.

No social safety net should be structured that way. It traps people and it's what we mean when we say state dependents. They become dependent on the state to enjoy that standard of living because there is no way to wean them off. It is, in short, a ploy to create reliable voting pools. Who are you going to vote for: the guy who promises you a raise to your benefits, or the one who tells you he's planning to cut that? Oh, and at the same time, you have another army of state dependents who are created - the bureaucrats who administer all those welfare funds in all those programs. They depend on the government programs in another way for their own livelihood.

Excellent post, unfortunately many don't see this or understand the concept. Our system here in the USA is whacked, and seriously needs to be repaired.

Often people mistake a reluctance and distaste for social programs as a indifference to the poor, but that's not what it is at all. It's a recognition of what's really going on with the system. Something else needs to be done with it to make it better able to actually do what we are told it's intended to do - give people a hand up rather just be a perpetual handout.

You had me 100% up to this point. Some/many in this country are just flat out greedy. Anything that is taken from them via taxes is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad, unless of course, it is used for the military to blow up a third world country.

reply to post by GenerationGap

The answer? Let the churches, foundations, and local communities handle welfare and shelters. The system is much harder to game when the support is coming from a person who knows your name, can look you in the eye, and knows how often you waste charity on booze, women, drugs, and loafing. If government is in charge of these things, it's only a matter of time before camps and furnaces must be used to achieve an efficient economic homeostasis. The latter has happened in every single welfare state that's every tried it.

Never in American lands. I agree with the underlying point though. We have left some the dealing of issues to government that you mentioned. It hasnt to this day resulted in anything good. That is unless you condone human warehousing. In order for your idea to work, society would have to change a singular view from this:

The system is much harder to game when the support is coming from a person who knows your name, can look you in the eye, and knows how often you waste charity on booze, women, drugs, and loafing.

To this: No matter your problem you are still part of this community and country. Lets see what we can do to get you out of the mess you're in and how much of that did WE cause?

Because its not always the individual who is the sole cause of his or her issue which can be one of several. There is a lot that can be done at the local level, true. But that whole "your lazy, you're a drunk you're a druggy attitude and personal despise by way of looking down has to change and it hasn't. Its gotten worse. Greed, stinginess and selfishness are rampant in every level of society. You combine that with debt and capitalism and lookout. Furnaces await just the same.