I'm fairly certain that most people do understand your argument, however just because they do not agree does not make them theives or complicit. The fact is that you cannot change 50+ years of welfare in an instant, you must have a starting point to correct the wrongs. I personally agree with some of the points you are making in the way of government welfare, but no argument regarding enumerated powers contained in this thread is either new or revolutionary. Thomas Jefferson began arguing the same point over 200 years ago.
Add, "and to provide for the common defense" to what governments should do and you'll get no argument from me.
Pity you couldn't bother reading most of the posts. I think the majority of us agree about the role of government. But the Republic has moved so far away from that vision that any statements to that effect are merely stating the obvious yet unattainable truth. We get it, the role of government is X...but it is, and has been for some time, doing Y....and the current majority of people in this country like it that way.
I submit that we will never see the end of the welfare state in our lifetimes....barring total collapse. So given that sad fact would you rather put some controls on the nanny state and the enslaved entitlement class and hope to control the damage/decline, or just let it roll on?
Defeatist, maybe. But I don't see anything on the horizon to convince me otherwise.
This is a given in the context of defending the individual's right to Life, Liberty & Property. The bearing of arms, being a human right, translates to each individual being able to defend themselves. This is the basic building block upon which the militia is founded. The Revolution at it's basics level was not fought by an organized army, but a collection of individuals freely fighting for their self interests. It is why the 2A states that the security of a free state depends on the militia.
I understand that people want to take the stance that the US needs to have a standing army. This belief contradicts the thinking of the Founders. They had just fought a war against a standing army and knew well enough that a standing army, answerable to no one but those in power, could be used against them... again. The only military branch authorized by the Constitution is the navy. At that time, the ability of naval forces could only penetrate inland a certain distance because of logistical limitations. The people, if set upon by the Navy by the command of those in charge, could retreat inland whatever distance to escape attack. As each male was to be a part of the militia, they could then regroup and plan accordingly beyond the range of naval forces.
I know, my thinking is beyond that of the flag wavers. Thesw views I hold aren't original to me. They come from studying the words, the events and the times at which the Constitution was written. And of course of the history of man in general. The militia is viewed by most citizens as antiquated. Yet, the 2A specifically states that security of the free State is directly tied to the militia. The 2A makes no mention of giving the responsibility of security to a standing army.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not a disjointed group of articles, sections and clauses. Each is presented in a specific sequence to address specific concerns. They are connected to the reality of what the Revolutionist had experienced and reflect their mindset. I highly recommend that citizens who want to understand the Constitution read "The Original Constitution" written by Robert G. Natelson for starters. In my study of the militia, the prime thing to remember is that no member is under the control of any government official. The militia is to be an autonomous, citizen defense force that does not answer to government officials. And because of this, government officials can not take control of them and use them against other citizens. Again, take this concept and square it with the experiences the Revolutionist had just undergone with Britian.
In summary, the responsibility of defense starts with the individual defending themselves without reliance upon the police (agents of the government). From that point individuals gather together into militia units where common sense dictates training in the art of war. Militias are then able to be called by the Sovereign States. And if necessary, the US Congress, after declaring war, can then forth the militia to form a temporary army to battle attacks against the confederation by outside invaders.
I going to vote for SMS in 2012.
Come on Dutch. Military technology has come a long way in the past couple of hundred years. The founders didn't want a standing army, so we shouldn't either? I wonder if you could persuade the Chinese to give up their army. You're position is pretty much that we should commit suicide , because the founders could not have forseen the contemporary situation. Madness.
Ok it is what it is... May I ask why you are so swift to judge those that do not share in your vision of what the government should or should not do? What I read in the post above is that you have read and studied and are drawing your own conclusions as to what some authors have written. I'm not saying your wrong, but I certainly do not have to agree with your point of view either.
I have never personally spoken with a founding father. I can only study as you have the documentation provided and therefore form my own conclusion. It may be written in black and white but the constitution has been debated and interpreted since it's inception. It's common knowledge that there were several drafts and revisions of the constitution. To say that someone does not get it simply because they do not agree I believe is incorrect.
I've skimmed about half of the 14 pages this thread has accumulated, and thought I'd go ahead and weigh in as a transplanted Southern-born Yankee.
How is drug testing going to fix the problem that Sykes mentions?
So to fix the problem of people selling their card, allow or require merchants to require photo ID when a benefit card is used. If the names don't match, don't allow the card to be used, and seize it if it can be safely done, and call the cops. That doesn't inconvenience anyone that way.
As far as drug testing for benefits, the devil is always in the details. One person signs the application, but the entire family receives value from the benefits. Therefore, you must test everyone in the family, or test no one. If anyone in the family tests positive, they have to leave the family unit so that they no longer receive any value from the benefits. Otherwise, you're penalizing the family for the actions of one person. Of course, then you're face with explaining to a 5-year-old why they have to pee in a cup....
As several have pointed out, not every job requires drug testing. And of all the times I've taken a pre-employment drug test, I have never been required to pay for it myself. The idea of requiring someone who needs financial help to pay for a test to qualify for that help is pretty stupid when you look at it objectively. "I know you need money. But first give me some money, so we can make sure we're allowed to give you money."
Just some thoughts.
How is drug testing going to fix the problem that Sykes mentions?
How does drug testing fix that? That's the first question anyone should be asking. If the proposed legislation doesn't fix the problem they claim it does, then the proposed legislation is a bad idea. Period.
So to fix the problem of people selling their card, allow or require merchants to require photo ID when a benefit card is used. If the names don't match, don't allow the card to be used, and seize it if it can be safely done, and call the cops. That doesn't inconvenience anyone that way.
As far as drug testing for benefits, the devil is always in the details. One person signs the application, but the entire family receives value from the benefits. Therefore, you must test everyone in the family, or test no one. If anyone in the family tests positive, they have to leave the family unit so that they no longer receive any value from the benefits. Otherwise, you're penalizing the family for the actions of one person. Of course, then you're face with explaining to a 5-year-old why they have to pee in a cup....
As several have pointed out, not every job requires drug testing. And of all the times I've taken a pre-employment drug test, I have never been required to pay for it myself. The idea of requiring someone who needs financial help to pay for a test to qualify for that help is pretty stupid when you look at it objectively. "I know you need money. But first give me some money, so we can make sure we're allowed to give you money."
Just some thoughts.
Similar threads
