Where in the Constitution does it say that the fed's are supposed to improve quality of life? They coin money, provide for national defense, and handle interstate affairs.
Look - here’s an example of why you’re wrong. Do you think free public education just *happened*? It did not. Once the decision was made to have a democracy, free public education for all became a requirement. It was a deliberate decision by the people who wrote the Constitution to provide it. It was NOT welfare or charity; it was strictly a matter of ensuring the survival of a functioning democracy. It’s more in keeping with the Constitution’s intent to consider projects that keep democracy functioning, than it will ever be to shut that type of consideration down.
Limiting the government to strictly administrative matters as you suggest is not the way it was initially envisioned. Such thinking also oversimplifies how government interacts with daily life at this time.
We aren't a democracy. Education is not a federal concern. More power to the states would solve most of the shit we're pissed off about. Answering to to distant strangers lording over our lives caused both of the civil wars we've fought.
More power to the states wouldn't solve everything though, it would just turn the big, dull pain of progress into a field of border conflicts, as each state turned its attention to promoting its rights and defending its sovereignty against not the national and international others with which it contends today, but against its siblings.
The tendency to unity makes us stronger. It just helps if we all mean well.
@funkmasterrex General welfare as in debts payed, defense provided, and te power to collect taxes to those ends. The courts and founders have made that clear.
“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.” - Thomas Jefferson. Not a single word about living wages or any collectivist healthcare. Quite the opposite, in fact.
@wilfree There would be no border conflicts and there would be far less disunity. Firstly, President Lincoln showed what happens when states fight, and prior to that SCOTUS and the original text of the Constitution state clearly that solving interstate issues is about 1/3 of what the feds are supposed to do.
Secondly, the disunity
We suffer from today is largely caused by urban elites and backwoods inbreds fighting over who's rules will be imposed on who, when largely both parties would be much happier and more productive if they could govern themselves. Maybe you need the feds to tell people not to dump sewage in reservoirs in the city. We can't afford the red tape when treating our well water.
We need our big ass gas guzzling trucks to navigate snowy back roads, haul our meat, and transport the equipment we work with. Y'all are probably fine restricting regular use of personal vehicles when getting to your office 4 blocks down the road or a subway stop away.
When has "Live and let live" ever caused less conflict than "I don't know your needs but will still decide them for you"?
But wouldn't it be prudent for that we have a populous at least educated enough to understand how taxes work? Right now, we don't. Our tax code is so convoluted 98% of the public don't understand it all, just the parts that pertain to them. That's a festering ground for manipulation which is not promoting the general welfare. I'm not saying educate everyone to the point they'd be tax lawyers right now, I'm saying give them enough to at least do math and simplify the tax code enough that it's straightforward enough to understand.
Live and let live IS the goal. Who do you think government is? It's not some Other, to be feared and challenged and identified in contrast to- it's all just people. It's not about government deciding your needs, it's about you being accountable for your decisions to the people they affect. We're all in it together. And it's all just- people, each, fundamentally, with equal claim to the rights to exist - don't you agree with that much?
Bring it back to the states. The feds are supposed to tax states anyways, not the people directly. There's two paragraphs that make it pretty clear how little power the feds are supposed to have the day to day.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
@willfree So much respect for your awesome thoughts! Not to be annoying in adding, but just I absolutely have to acknowledge words I have so much appreciation for. So fantastic.
Exactly. It’s not about “free”. It’s about resource allocation. I’m all for allocating resources to ensure well educated and productive adults. That includes: Headstart (pre-school programs), counseling and drug therapy, superior education, rehabilitation, welfare as needed for non-retired adults, appropriate provision for the disabled and elderly, good infrastructure, a living wage, and healthcare when needed. I am for all programs that secure the public good. I think complaints about “free” are a nonsensical attempt by the deliberately incompetent to control things they can’t otherwise have. I see it as a power grab, not a principled stance.
You've got it backwards. The ones making a power grab are the ones trying to, surprise surprise, take power away from people.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
Kid.....spend a little less time on far right YouTube and a little more time helping people you think you should despise. When I was your age I was still parroting right wing talking points too.
Fuck off. I don't spend any time on far right anything. I work and I train. I'm a medical professional who has endured rigorous curriculums to get where I am, not some fucking spoiled fat bodied neckbeard living in mommy's basement eating cheetos and jerking off to Nazi paraphernalia. That you were a stupid kid has no bearing on me.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
You are 19. Your brain isn't fully grown. Only the very foolish are absolutely certain.
I could be snarky, say I'm absolutely certain communism and fascism were two of the worst things to come out of the 20th century, but instead I'll simply state that my beliefs are well-founded, classically liberal, and subject to change in the face of what I decide is compelling. Hell, they've changed recently. I used to be a statist too. Then I realized the folly of assuming that they have my interests at heart. That anyone outside my inner circle has my interests at heart. My brain is plenty developed, thank you very much. I'm a grown man and will not suffer being treated otherwise. Thanks to my father, in spite of the public education system, I think my own thoughts, and my brain is still soft enough for me to learn how to be a medic, learn advanced infantry tactics, and roll with combat engineers. Semper Ultimo.
Yes I know it won't stabilize until I'm around 26 (I'm a fucking medical professional, I learned this shit), that does nothing to invalidate me as a man.
The British government mismanaging a population it didn't give two shits about. My history teacher tried to say it was caused by the war, but that's just the timing of Britain seizing people's farms and livelihoods, ostensibly to help an already starving population, but really just to use the land and food for their own needs.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
East India Company. Private corporation. Free market.
What was the Bhopal disaster?
In '43? That was the British Government.
I'm not familiar with Bhopal, but I'm certainly not inclined to believe your take on it if you excuse Churchill's culpability in Bengal.
10 million in a few years? Amateur hour to Mao, Stalin, even the Khmer Rouge. And here's some free chicken, a government imposed monopoly with the power to impose taxes and write laws is about as far from free market as it gets.
Limiting the government to strictly administrative matters as you suggest is not the way it was initially envisioned. Such thinking also oversimplifies how government interacts with daily life at this time.
The tendency to unity makes us stronger. It just helps if we all mean well.
“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.” - Thomas Jefferson. Not a single word about living wages or any collectivist healthcare. Quite the opposite, in fact.
@wilfree There would be no border conflicts and there would be far less disunity. Firstly, President Lincoln showed what happens when states fight, and prior to that SCOTUS and the original text of the Constitution state clearly that solving interstate issues is about 1/3 of what the feds are supposed to do.
Secondly, the disunity
We need our big ass gas guzzling trucks to navigate snowy back roads, haul our meat, and transport the equipment we work with. Y'all are probably fine restricting regular use of personal vehicles when getting to your office 4 blocks down the road or a subway stop away.
When has "Live and let live" ever caused less conflict than "I don't know your needs but will still decide them for you"?
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Yes I know it won't stabilize until I'm around 26 (I'm a fucking medical professional, I learned this shit), that does nothing to invalidate me as a man.
What was the Bhopal disaster?
I'm not familiar with Bhopal, but I'm certainly not inclined to believe your take on it if you excuse Churchill's culpability in Bengal.