Ron Paul!

[dutchwrangler]

Government money will always come from taxes. The only thing to really argue about as to how it is obtained and where it comes from is the preferred tax structure. Personally, I wish our progressive income tax system would be scrapped in favor of the fair tax. I'm very much supportive of taxing people based on how much they consume from the economy (how much they take from the economy) rather than taxing them on income (a measure of their input to the economy). As you may surmise, I'm a huge fan of the Fair Tax proposal.

As to whether the "legitimate causes" are beneficial to the whole population or a select group, I've always favored goods that are truly public in nature. That is to say goods that have the characteristics of non-exhaustion and non-exclusion.

Ideally, those transferring the money (the ones that WE elect to do so) are trying to do the right thing. There will always be crooks, that's just a sad by product of living in a fallen world. However, there will always be good guys in the government too.

I favor a government funded as per the original intent of the Founders which by it's very design keeps the central government small. The Fair Tax is better than the communist plank progressive tax we have now, but it still allows the central government to remain large and intrusive. If you want to kill the beast and preserve yours and your family's freedom... starve the beast.

Regardless... nothing is going to change until the people decide they've had enough of the King George. The abuses by our central government make the grievances in the Declaration of Independence look like child's play. But Americans take it... they deserve the government they have.

 

[soonerwings]

I favor a government funded as per the original intent of the Founders which by it's very design keeps the central government small. The Fair Tax is better than the communist plank progressive tax we have now, but it still allows the central government to remain large and intrusive. If you want to kill the beast and preserve yours and your family's freedom... starve the beast.

Regardless... nothing is going to change until the people decide they've had enough of the King George. The abuses by our central government make the grievances in the Declaration of Independence look like child's play. But Americans take it... they deserve the government they have.

Since Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" I'm not sure why you'd think that the founders didn't intend for taxation to provide federal revenue. Remember, the Constitution was drafted with the specific intent of strengthening the central government relative to the Articles of Confederation.

 

[dutchwrangler]

Since Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" I'm not sure why you'd think that the founders didn't intend for taxation to provide federal revenue. Remember, the Constitution was drafted with the specific intent of strengthening the central government relative to the Articles of Confederation.

Take it a step further... that which you posted does not authorize SPENDING beyond "to pay Debts, provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (the United States in context being the central government and not the confederation of the States as a whole as the States are independent, sovereign entitities) those funds taken in by the central government were to be applied towards only those concerns directly related to the 18 enumerated powers. The above does not provide for the central government to SPEND on anything outside those 18 enumerated powers. Those enumerated tasks keep the central government small. And any expenditure beyond the 18 enumerated powers violates the Constitution.

The intent and design of the Articles was to bring the independent, sovereign States (essentially they were small nations with a common language and some social customs) together in a system similar to the current EU. The Articles did not establish a nation any more than the EU is a nation. Nothing changed with the adoption of the current Constitution as ratified by the States. If it had, it is guaranteed that few or none of the States would have ratified it as it would mean that the States would cease to exist as sovereign entities. A reading of the Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers will bear this out as will letters and correspondance between the framers of the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, the founding document of the confederation proves this in the final paragraph.

And this in my estimation is where Americans get it all wrong. You all have come to think of the US as a nation and that the States don't matter. It was the sovereign, independent Colonies that declared independence from Britain. It was the sovereign, independent States that drafted and passed the Articles of Confederation. And it was the sovereign, independent States that created the central government to act as the arbiter of disputes and differences between the States by ratification of the current constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

I approach all these issues from a different perspective of just about everyone on this forum. I'm not an American. I'm a naturalized US citizen from Canada (dual citizen actually), which itself is a confederation of independent provinces where each province is jealous of it's own interests. The power in Ottawa is limited. The Canadian system similarly follows the line of reasoning that the Founders had for the US (albeit with a few differences). The conflict of 1861 pretty much set the stage for what we now have... a central government that does everything it possibly can to circumvent the restrictions of the Constitution and the power of the States in order to enslave all citizens regardless of race.

The only thing I care about in the world is Liberty. I don't care about lines on a map. I don't care about country, or flag or all the pomp that goes with being an American. I seriously doubt our Creator gives a care about all of it either. I'm on this forum to simply bring awareness to those who still haven't figured out that the only thing that matters is LIBERTY.

Many vocal members here rant about the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by the central government... yet are indifferent to the fact that the same central government is infringing upon their other freedoms, in particular their economic freedom which essentially is their personal freedom.

It's ironic that some of the strongest proponents of the 2A on this forum are willing to vote for those who are anti-Liberty. I realize none of the candidates are perfect. Yet, the one man who has a consistent record of opposing the growth of the central government during his tenure, whose views align nearly perfectly with that of the Founders, who has defended the Constitution tirelessly... is discounted and viewed as a someone who doesn't get it. He's "unelectable" because he isn't made of plastic or have good hair. He is the only candidate who is a STATESMAN. Listen to him speak and you'll hear the passion he has for preserving the Constitution and promoting individual Liberty. He abhors the collective, socialist mindset that most Americans are enthralled by in these modern times. He constantly talks about the Founders. He Constantly talks about the Constitution. He doesn't look for ways to circumvent the Constitution but to turn the central government back towards a government bound by the Constitution.

So many of you look only at the Party you're affiliated with. You don't care about Liberty. You simply want your party to win and the rest be damned. You want the central government to grow larger and larger. Beat Obama is the constant drumbeat. Well, Obama beat himself as the natural law of economics makes it's adjustments to the US economy. You no longer care about the rule of law. Most don't even care about the Constitution. Even fewer care about Liberty.

Liberty is the only thing that matters. Government by it's very nature hates Liberty. Government hates you. And your children. And your grandchildren. Government is a self serving entity. And you're just someone to be farmed and harvested by government to expand it's power over you. It has been this way with every government throughout history. The governments we have at all levels is no different. The worst of the worst though is found in D.C. It's enslaving you and has been enslaving you since 1861...

 

[soonerwings]

Take it a step further... that which you posted does not authorize SPENDING beyond "to pay Debts, provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (the United States in context being the central government and not the confederation of the States as a whole as the States are independent, sovereign entitities)

Do you think that "general welfare" was inserted to give legally elected officials leeway just in case the founding fathers may have missed something? I do.

The intent and design of the Articles was to bring the independent, sovereign States (essentially they were small nations with a common language and some social customs) together in a system similar to the current EU. The Articles did not establish a nation any more than the EU is a nation. Nothing changed with the adoption of the current Constitution as ratified by the States. If it had, it is guaranteed that few or none of the States would have ratified it as it would mean that the States would cease to exist as sovereign entities. A reading of the Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers will bear this out as will letters and correspondance between the framers of the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, the founding document of the confederation proves this in the final paragraph.

Make no mistake, the Constitution was intended to strengthen the federal government relative to the states. George Washington himself was reluctant to attend the constitutional convention for fear that the states with their "darling sovereignties" could not be overcome. Also, George Washington believed that the problem with the Articles of Confederation was quite simply "no money". Our founding fathers understood that the power to tax would increase the federal government's power relative to the states and they designed the Constitution accordingly.

And this in my estimation is where Americans get it all wrong. You all have come to think of the US as a nation and that the States don't matter. It was the sovereign, independent Colonies that declared independence from Britain. It was the sovereign, independent States that drafted and passed the Articles of Confederation. And it was the sovereign, independent States that created the central government to act as the arbiter of disputes and differences between the States by ratification of the current constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

Mostly agreed. I agree that state's rights are often overlooked (I'm a big fan of the 10th amendment) but I disagree with your stance that the states didn't deliberately offer up some of their power in return for a strengthened union.

Many vocal members here rant about the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by the central government... yet are indifferent to the fact that the same central government is infringing upon their other freedoms, in particular their economic freedom which essentially is their personal freedom.

It's ironic that some of the strongest proponents of the 2A on this forum are willing to vote for those who are anti-Liberty. I realize none of the candidates are perfect. Yet, the one man who has a consistent record of opposing the growth of the central government during his tenure, whose views align nearly perfectly with that of the Founders, who has defended the Constitution tirelessly... is discounted and viewed as a someone who doesn't get it. He's "unelectable" because he isn't made of plastic or have good hair. He is the only candidate who is a STATESMAN. Listen to him speak and you'll hear the passion he has for preserving the Constitution and promoting individual Liberty. He abhors the collective, socialist mindset that most Americans are enthralled by in these modern times. He constantly talks about the Founders. He Constantly talks about the Constitution. He doesn't look for ways to circumvent the Constitution but to turn the central government back towards a government bound by the Constitution.

Agreed.

Liberty is the only thing that matters. Government by it's very nature hates Liberty. Government hates you. And your children. And your grandchildren. Government is a self serving entity. And you're just someone to be farmed and harvested by government to expand it's power over you. It has been this way with every government throughout history. The governments we have at all levels is no different. The worst of the worst though is found in D.C. It's enslaving you and has been enslaving you since 1861...

Government by its very nature does not hate liberty. Rather, it attempts to balance individual liberties against the good of society. Is Government justified in outlawing murder? How about outlawing fraud? Is it justified in building roads that promote the economic well being of everyone at the expense of the individual in that he/she is taxed? All of these things constrain individual liberty, but unrestrained individual liberty can only result in anarchy.

 

[dutchwrangler]

The sovereign states did know they were loaning to the central government powers that they inherently held (and still do). Just as the individual gives up some power to live in a peaceful society. Only those 18 enumerated powers listed in the Constitution were the powers that the States granted to the central government to deal with in order to achieve harmonious relations between the States. One only need to read history prior to the adoption of the current Constitution to see how the States were often at odds with one another, in particular trade between each. To ensure the success of the confederation the States realized that some issues were more easily dealt with by a central government which would act as the arbiter of those powers granted to them. Again, the General Welfare clause, like that pertaining to taxation... is only towards the 18 enumerated powers. Beyond that anything "general" is in violation of the mandate of Article 1, Section 8 as loaned by the States. Social Security, Medicaid, etc... all are outside the scope of the enumerated powers. Again... why is it that when these issue come up those in government and those who support these programs constantly strive to circumvent the Constitution with their arguments? It's because they know that the Constitution did not give these powers to the central government. The power to tax was only to carry out the enumerated tasks. And spending was also only to be used to carry out those enumerated tasks. That's how the Founders intended to limit the power of the central government. Again... the ratification debates of the States need to be studied as well as the Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers to understand the mindset of those who drafted the Constitution.

Government by it's nature does hate Liberty. Name one government currently in existance that is fighting for it on behalf of the individual. Our government definitely is not doing this as prescribed by the Declaration of Independence (the Founding Document). The sole purpose of government as mentioned in the Declaration of Independences is to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing more, nothing less. Anarchy by definition is simple "without ruler". People construe that anarchism equates to violence. But look at marriage. In a social institution where mutual respect between a man and a woman exists... anarchism exists as well. Both are equal and thus there is no need for a ruler. The moment one becomes the ruler, then the other becomes the slave. This doesn't change any when the example is expanded to the entire societal system as a whole. Thus, anarchism can be peaceful provided mutual respect is shown by the involved parties.

 

[soonerwings]

T

he sovereign states did know they were loaning to the central government powers that they inherently held (and still do). Just as the individual gives up some power to live in a peaceful society. Only those 18 enumerated powers listed in the Constitution were the powers that the States granted to the central government to deal with in order to achieve harmonious relations between the States. One only need to read history prior to the adoption of the current Constitution to see how the States were often at odds with one another, in particular trade between each. To ensure the success of the confederation the States realized that some issues were more easily dealt with by a central government which would act as the arbiter of those powers granted to them. Again, the General Welfare clause, like that pertaining to taxation... is only towards the 18 enumerated powers. Beyond that anything "general" is in violation of the mandate of Article 1, Section 8 as loaned by the States. Social Security, Medicaid, etc... all are outside the scope of the enumerated powers. Again... why is it that when these issue come up those in government and those who support these programs constantly strive to circumvent the Constitution with their arguments? It's because they know that the Constitution did not give these powers to the central government. The power to tax was only to carry out the enumerated tasks. And spending was also only to be used to carry out those enumerated tasks. That's how the Founders intended to limit the power of the central government. Again... the ratification debates of the States need to be studied as well as the Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers to understand the mindset of those who drafted the Constitution.

If you'll click here, you'll notice that there are only 17 statements beginning with "to" after "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" What does this mean? It means that Congress having power to laytaxes, provide for defense and general welfare is the first of the 18 enumerated powers. Our founding fathers knew that times change, and provided a mechanism to accommodate change.

Government by it's nature does hate Liberty. Name one government currently in existance that is fighting for it on behalf of the individual. Our government definitely is not doing this as prescribed by the Declaration of Independence (the Founding Document). The sole purpose of government as mentioned in the Declaration of Independences is to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing more, nothing less. Anarchy by definition is simple "without ruler". People construe that anarchism equates to violence. But look at marriage. In a social institution where mutual respect between a man and a woman exists... anarchism exists as well. Both are equal and thus there is no need for a ruler. The moment one becomes the ruler, then the other becomes the slave. This doesn't change any when the example is expanded to the entire societal system as a whole. Thus, anarchism can be peaceful provided mutual respect is shown by the involved parties.

The fact that people aren't doing something right doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Government in the purest form of the word simply means to "regulate or give order to". Government is not human and is dispassionate. It doesn't have emotion or "hate" anything. "Hate" is a HUMAN problem and not an institutional one.

 

[soonerwings]

Now, I'll be the first to say that "general welfare" may be vague as to what actions may be taken, but not as to who they may benefit. It's the general welfare of the United States. Programs that are unconstitutional are those that benefit one group in the United States more than another. It all goes back to the concept of a "public good" having both the characteristics of non-exhaustion and non-exclusion.

By the way dutch, thanks for the debate. I always enjoy a meaningful conversation with someone that has a differing perspective and the ability to make me think.

 

[WTJ]

While the "Fair" Tax is more fair than the current progressive system, I concur with the statement that the Federal system has waaaaaaay over-reached it's Constitutional authority. I also concur that it needs to be returned to the powers it was originally authorized. If a sovereign state wants to provide entitlements to its citizens, then it may do so. That means that those who do not support the majority view may vote with their feet (see CA for an example). Hence the existence of the Tenth Amendment.

While Mr. Paul does not communicate well, he would be wise to use this tack, as opposed to his 'foreign entanglements' platform. One feeds the other. It is now, after all, known as the Department of Defense, instead of it's former name. If there is no 'money' (AKA FRNs) to support foreign 'aid' programs, it stops.

 

[dutchwrangler]

Now, I'll be the first to say that "general welfare" may be vague as to what actions may be taken, but not as to who they may benefit. It's the general welfare of the United States. Programs that are unconstitutional are those that benefit one group in the United States more than another. It all goes back to the concept of a "public good" having both the characteristics of non-exhaustion and non-exclusion.

By the way dutch, thanks for the debate. I always enjoy a meaningful conversation with someone that has a differing perspective and the ability to make me think.

What is the United States?

Let's look at the first constitution, the Articles of Confederation...

Article 1. The stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

Article 2. Each State retains it's sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which in not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article 3. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare; binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade or other pretence whatever.

And so forth with the balance of the document. As Article 2 points out, the United States was not a "country or nation". It is nothing more than a group of like minded entities gathered together for mutual defense and benefit. Each state is Sovereign. That is the key to understanding the confederation.

Thus, since each state is sovereign, the group that resulted decided upon the name "United States"... the very same way that all of us on this forum gather here and are OSA. We're still all sovereign individuals yet we belong to OSA as a means of advancing the 2A.

Moving onto the current Constitution, the Preamble continues with the confederation mindset of the Articles with the first sentence: "We the People of the United States..." and concludes with, "... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It's imperative that the context of that last sentence be understood and the highlight of the word "for". The Framers understood the need for the Constitution to be a LIMIT OF POWER on the central governing body. The entire Constitution is a restriction on the governing body called the "United States". It is not a restriction on the individuals or the sovereign States of the group. No more than the OSA rules of conduct are binding on each member when not on the forum. This distinction of what is the "United States" has been lost on most Americans. The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution DID NOT establish a nation. It established a governing body and named it "United States". It's no different in that respect than the United Nations.

Thus, when reading the Constitution, it can be seen that each reference to the "United States" is making a reference to the governing body that is to be bound and limited by the Constitution. Article 1, Section 1 makes this point at the very beginning: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the UNITED STATES, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives." This reiterates and reaffirms the Preamble and continues with the philosophy expounded in the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation and the 9th and 10th Amendments. This understanding that the Constitution is a LIMIT on the governing body is the key to all the political debate.

This simple concept has been lost on Americans over time, especially since the conflict of 1861-1865 where the central government pushed for an end to the sovereignty of the States in an attempt to unify the States into "one nation"... which we are not in spite of the anti-Constitutional "Pledge of Allegiance" written by a known socialist.

The "United States" is nothing more than a governing body for a mutual compact of the sovereign States to deal with a select number of enumerated tasks in order to promote uniformity among the differing sovereign States. That in a nutshell is the federal system that the Framers presented to the States for ratification. Read those ratification debates by the different States to understand that is how they viewed the Constitution and how it would be used. What exists today is completely 180° the opposite. The governing body known as the "United States" which was birthed by the parent States has morphed into the parent and the States are now the children. It calls the shots which is completely backwards of what the Framers intended. The "United States" is the new King George. Read the Declaration of Independence and see how many of the listed grievences can be applied to the current central government. And ask yourself, what the hell happened?

Read the founding documents (DoI, the Articles, the Constitution), the letters, the debates, the Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers, "The Law" by Bastiat, the works of Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams. Read the views of Jefferson and Madison. None of those words advocate the creation of a nation. They only advocated a confederation for mutual support and defense. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[soonerwings]

We both agree that the intent of the Constitution is to limit the power of the central government. However, we tend to disagree on just where the limits are. You advocate that the lines "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" refer only to the enumerated powers that follow them while I advocate that those lines contain enumerated powers as well. You keep coming back to whole sovereignty issue but the fact still remains that the founding fathers knew that the articles gave too much power to the states and not enough to the central government. The entire reason the Constitution was created was to strengthen the position of the "common" government in relation to the states. This being the case, it cannot be argued that the founding fathers intended for separate states with unlimited sovereignty.

I do agree that the federal government is WAY out of it's intended bounds, you and I just tend to disagree a little on the precise location of the boundaries.