ROSS PEROT
Kevin Carothers
> Tell my why it's the government's job to enforce a particular moral code
>on someone. Sure, it's extremely uncool for pregnant women to abuse their
>bodies with smoke and booze, but the job of stopping this is the duty of
>their family and church.
> If the parents smoke and drink, perhaps the government should take the
>child away from the parents. That way the child won't suffer the ill
>effects of such an obviously "malformed" family.
> Sheesh.
Wrong. The government has an obligation to stop social decay. Drinking
Drugs and tobacco during pregnancy causes birth defects which is a drain
on society. Even small amounts can cause toxemia or worse. There might not
actually be any physical defects, but behaviour problems can sometimes be
attributed to alcohol and drug consumption. One of the greatest tricks of
the Republican party is to gather votes by reducing complex social
and economic issues to issues of morality. If I have read your posting
the way you seem to have intended, it looks like you have obviously bitten
into this sham.
Although you don't mention it in your posting, I would bet you have similar
right-wingnut views on abortion.
I know it sounds elitist, but I personally think there are some people
who shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues which they don't understand.
Jawaid, I work once a month in a co-op with several handicapped children
and adults. Try spending a week in a similar environment and tell me how
many times questions of morality come into your mind.
--
Kevin Carothers {psivax,philabs,retix,quad1}!ttidca!kevin
Rich Thomson
ke...@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
> Wrong. The government has an obligation to stop social decay.
Please show me where it says this in the Constitution; I can't seem
to find it. The Government has _only_ those powers granted to it in
the Constitution. Anything else is up to the populace at large and is
not the responsibility of the govt. I suppose under your argument,
the govt. has an "obligation" to prevent me from contracting
syphillis?
-- Rich
--
Repeal the personal income tax; vote Libertarian in 1992.
Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted; Copyright 1992 Rich Thomson
UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson Rich Thomson
Internet: rtho...@dsd.es.com IRC: _Rich_ PEXt Programmer
Alex Orenshteyn
>In article <1992Jun30.1...@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>, fred...@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Brian Frederick) writes:
>
>... mentions that Perot's favorite book is "Leadership Secrets of
> Attila the Hun"
>>
>> Does anyone know Bush's favorite book? Clinton's? Quale's?
>
>How about:
>
>Bush - "Millie's Book" by Millie (as told to Barbara Bush)
>Clinton - "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by ???
This one is by Dale Carnegie(I think this is correct spelling)
>Quayle - "Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing" by Judy Blume
This is pretty funny.
>
>
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Mike Doel <do...@crd.ge.com>
>P.O. Box 8
>Schenectady, NY 12301 (518) 387-6203
>
>"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
> and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David L. Veal
>
> Wrong. The government has an obligation to stop social decay.
Why is this the government's job? And more importantly, what *is*
"social decay?" Who defines it?
> Drinking
> Drugs and tobacco during pregnancy causes birth defects which is a drain
> on society.
This is only a drain if society (which is different from "the
government") chooses to pay for those birth defects. At that point
I can hardly think that "society" has any right to impose restrictions
based on a service it has voluntarily chosen to offer solely based on
the fact that "society" finds the idea of not acting repugnant.
> Even small amounts can cause toxemia or worse. There might not
> actually be any physical defects, but behaviour problems can sometimes be
> attributed to alcohol and drug consumption. One of the greatest tricks of
> the Republican party is to gather votes by reducing complex social
> and economic issues to issues of morality.
Morality has a lot to do with social and economic issues. The
Republican's problem is they tie everything to a *specific* morality.
--
David Veal ve...@cs.utk.edu (UTK Computer Science Department)
pa14...@utkvm1.utk.edu (UTK Division of Continuing Ed.)
"What if you were an idiot, and what if you were a member of Congress?
But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
Brian Frederick
A long time ago, I heard "to know a may, read his favorite book". Perot's
is _The_Management_Secrets_Of_Attila_the_Hun_. He raves about it. To get
a peek into him mind, I bought it and am reading it.
Interesting book in it's own right, I recommend it. Most interesting is the
books philosophy of leadership: the only way to be a successful leader is to
be very honest with your people, never give a reward you wouldn't take
yourself, etc. In short, be an eagle-scout.
Does anyone know Bush's favorite book? Clinton's? Quale's?
=brian
Michael Doel
... mentions that Perot's favorite book is "Leadership Secrets of
Attila the Hun"
>
> Does anyone know Bush's favorite book? Clinton's? Quale's?
How about:
Bush - "Millie's Book" by Millie (as told to Barbara Bush)
Clinton - "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by ???
Quayle - "Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing" by Judy Blume
Robert E George
s.cc.binghamton.edu (Brian Frederick) writes:
>Hi there,
> A long time ago, I heard "to know a may, read his favorite book". Perot's
>is _The_Management_Secrets_Of_Attila_the_Hun_. He raves about it. To get
>a peek into him mind, I bought it and am reading it.
> Does anyone know Bush's favorite book? Clinton's? Quale's?
In the Vice-pres. debate in 1988, Quayle mentioned a book that he was reading.
He said that it pertained to a different historical period but that he found it
fascinating to see how applicable the past was to the present. I can't remember
the title, but I am sure you can check newsmagazine accounts of the debate and
find out.
Robert George
(speaking only for myself)
Sigurd P. Crossland
procedure for selecting a President in the situation where no candidate receives
a majority of electors' votes. (Anyone think this election will not be decided
in the House?) The procedure the House of Representatives follows is not quite
so well defined, has little in the way of precedence, and will most certainly require Supreme Court clarification. (How will state representation be chosen
when determining the constitution of the quorum? If only 2/3 of the states need
be represented and a majority is necessary to win, what prevents 33 Representatives from the same party but different states from conducting a legal
election and declaring their candidate the majority winner? Will the Democrat
and Republican parties contest the make-up of the Independent party's electors?)
Considering that Perot has, at this time, no Independent Party support in the
House of Representatives, an interesting strategy might be to run for Vice
President and 'select' a strong (Jean Kirkpatrick?) Presidential running mate.
This way, if the House were to deadlock, the newly elected Vice President would
assume the Presidency. (Senate can only chose from the top 2 candidates for
V.P.)
Expect the stock market to begin reacting to the insecurity of what should prove
to be a most interesting election, barring any serious blunders by the
candidates from now 'til November.
Robert Tilden
>In article <36...@ttidca.TTI.COM>
> ke...@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
>> Wrong. The government has an obligation to stop social decay.
>
>Please show me where it says this in the Constitution; I can't seem
>to find it.
If you read the Preamble to the Constitution, Rich, you will find the
phrase 'promote the general welfare'. This phrase was (I think) the
loophole which allowed the formation of the Social Security system in the
1930's.
-Bob
Robert J. Wade
> ke...@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
>> Wrong. The government has an obligation to stop social decay.
>
>Please show me where it says this in the Constitution; I can't seem
>to find it. The Government has _only_ those powers granted to it in
>the Constitution. Anything else is up to the populace at large and is
>not the responsibility of the govt. I suppose under your argument,
>the govt. has an "obligation" to prevent me from contracting
>syphillis?
>
> -- Rich
amendment 10:
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.
Mike Bur
>Recent postings by James Allan (154) and Fred J McCall (226)[...]
[deleted]
Man, that's too many guys, have you considered switching to decaf?
Mike
Jeff Jackson
> In the Vice-pres. debate in 1988, Quayle mentioned a book that he was reading.
> He said that it pertained to a different historical period but that he found it
> fascinating to see how applicable the past was to the present. I can't remember
> the title, but I am sure you can check newsmagazine accounts of the debate and
> find out.
Plato's Republic if memory serves. Didn't he say he makes a point of
reading it every year?
--
============================================================================
Jeffrey Glen Jackson _|_Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna
j...@ssd.csd.harris.com | bust you up tonight."
x5120 | Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day."
~~~~~~~~~ -- Carman, "The Champion"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A vote for Perot is a vote to repeal of the Constitution.
Just say NO to Perot.
Chris Blackmon
>righto rich,
>amendment 10:
>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.
What?!
I believe the 10th Amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be construed
to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one
of the United States by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects
of any foreign state.
Chris Blackmon, N4VGK || In this business, you either lead, follow
pro...@catt.ncsu.edu || or get the hell out of the way.
"pour aller ou personne n'est jamais alle'...."
Kevin Carothers
% ke...@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
%> Wrong. The government has an obligation to stop social decay.
%
%Please show me where it says this in the Constitution; I can't seem
%to find it. The Government has _only_ those powers granted to it in
%the Constitution.
Asolutely.
"WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of
America."
The term "social decay" is a direct contra-definition of "domestic
tranquility". Isn't interpretation fun? Politicians certainly think so.
%Anything else is up to the populace at large and is
%not the responsibility of the govt. I suppose under your argument,
%the govt. has an "obligation" to prevent me from contracting
%syphillis?
No. The government doesn't have an obligation to prevent you from
getting syphillis, but they have an obligation to keep syphillis from
becoming a public health problem. Public heath and safety is one of
the largest portions of govt spending (ever hear of FDA? FAA? DOT? EPA?...).
Keep in mind that the Constitution is written in extremely broad strokes.
In fact, it and the Communist Manifesto (in major portions) are worded
somewhat similar. The differences only come out in how they are interpreted.
As I mentioned in the part of my posting that you left out, Where the
Republican party (ie; the controlling political influence in the executive
branch) is getting off nowadays is attempting to make moral issues out of
economic ones in order to attract votes.
Kevin Carothers
%In article <1992Jun29.2...@dsd.es.com> rtho...@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes:
%>In article <36...@ttidca.TTI.COM>%>> Wrong. The government has an obligation to stop social decay.
%>
%>Please show me where it says this in the Constitution; I can't seem
%>to find it.
% <stuff deleted>
%
%If you read the Preamble to the Constitution, Rich, you will find the
%phrase 'promote the general welfare'. This phrase was (I think) the
%loophole which allowed the formation of the Social Security system in the
%1930's.
%
Rule #1051:
The only thing lower than a spelling/dick-size flame is a
constitutional flame.
Kevin Carothers
%ke...@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
%>
%> Wrong. The government has an obligation to stop social decay.
%
% Why is this the government's job?
At the risk of wasting precious net bandwidth, I'll repeat the 1st parag
from the constitution:
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of
America.
The key phrases are "domestic tranquility" and "general welfare".
%And more importantly, what> *is* "social decay?" Who defines it?
"social decay" is the opposite of "domestic tranquility".
%
%> Drinking
%> Drugs and tobacco during pregnancy causes birth defects which is a drain
%> on society.
%
% This is only a drain if society (which is different from "the
%government") chooses to pay for those birth defects. At that point
%I can hardly think that "society" has any right to impose restrictions
%based on a service it has voluntarily chosen to offer solely based on
%the fact that "society" finds the idea of not acting repugnant.
Government is a representation of the society it serves. Hence the name:
"Civil Servant". If you think otherwise, then how do you think they
got in there (you are old enough to vote, aren't you)?
BTW - I NEVER said anything about society imposing restrictions. Government,
as a representation of society, insures "domestic tranquility and general
welfare" by social spending programs (remember that term from high
school? :).
But I'd really like for you to illuminate me on what you believe
"society" defines as "repugnant"?
%>One of the greatest tricks of the Republican party is to gather
%>votes by reducing complex social and economic issues to issues of morality.
%
% Morality has a lot to do with social and economic issues.
%
How Machiavellian.
You are correct by current economic theories. But those are exactly why
the fabric of society is failing.
ie; Republicans think they can reduce social spending if we all believe in
Ghod and go to church and keep off the streets. Democrats think that
increased social spending will produce a utopia. Perot is probably some
sort of "technocrat" who probably has a derivative utopic vision. Whoever
wins, we'll probably all be lucky if things don't get extremely
fucked up (more than they already are).
Kevin Carothers
[---]
>>Quayle - "Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing" by Judy Blume
>This is pretty funny.
>
I've always wondered if Quayle ever read "The Dan Quayle Quiz Book".
I wonder if he would autograph my copy if I sent it to him?
Van Snyder
> getting syphillis, but they have an obligation to keep syphillis from
> becoming a public health problem. Public heath and safety is one of
> the largest portions of govt spending (ever hear of FDA? FAA? DOT? EPA?...).
Bzzzt. Have you read the recent summaries of the budget? "All other: 8.6%"
doesn't sound like the "largest portions of govt spending".
--
Van Snyder = vsn...@math.jpl.nasa.gov
--
Van Snyder = vsn...@math.jpl.nasa.gov
David L. Veal
>%ke...@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
>%> Wrong. The government has an obligation to stop social decay.
>% Why is this the government's job?
> At the risk of wasting precious net bandwidth, I'll repeat the 1st parag
> from the constitution:
[Preamble to the Constitution deleted]
> The key phrases are "domestic tranquility" and "general welfare".
The Preamble to the Constitution is a statement of goals, and in no
way an empowerment. It describes what the founders wanted the government
to accomplish, not necessarily something that the government was supposed
to take specific actions in order achieve.
The action taken is to "ordain and establish the Constitution"
in order to bring about the "domestic tranquility." The intent was for
the new government to bring about these things because of its structure,
not of any specific actions.
>
>%And more importantly, what *is* "social decay?" Who defines it?
>
> "social decay" is the opposite of "domestic tranquility".
That's cute. Now we have two undefined, subjective terms
in place of one.
>%> Drinking
>%> Drugs and tobacco during pregnancy causes birth defects which is a drain
> on society.
>% This is only a drain if society (which is different from "the
>%government") chooses to pay for those birth defects. At that point
>%I can hardly think that "society" has any right to impose restrictions
>%based on a service it has voluntarily chosen to offer solely based on
>%the fact that "society" finds the idea of not acting repugnant.
>
> Government is a representation of the society it serves.
Government is a seperate entity from society. Government is a tool
to be used by society when all other tools have failed. Government
represents society in the same way a hammer represents a carpenter.
And society better watch its government before it hits itself on the
thumb.
> Hence the name:
> "Civil Servant". If you think otherwise, then how do you think they
> got in there (you are old enough to vote, aren't you)?
Government *is* and *should be* in the service of the people.
(which is yet another thing which is a seperate entity from "society")
Those people in the government who do not serve the people should be
removed. The widespread outrage and dissatisfaction should be enough
to convince most that *something* is wrong. That the people have not
taken it upon themselves to correct the problem is a far worse
reflection on the people themselves than the government.
And given that "society" has allowed the government to get so
far astray without giving the reins a good hard jerk is reason enough
to worry. No, "society" wants the government to fix the problems
it got itself into, having forgotten that that government is itself
a reflection of the irresponsibility of the citizenry.
One reflection of society is going to have poor chance at
fixing another reflection on society.
> BTW - I NEVER said anything about society imposing restrictions. Government,
> as a representation of society, insures "domestic tranquility and general
> welfare" by social spending programs (remember that term from high
> school? :).
I have very vivid memories of high school government class. Much of
what I was taught I have since discarded after going back and looking at
events and situations without the colored glasses provided by a government
controlled school system.
Society has to solve its own problems, and until it does, no amount
of social spending is going to solve anything. At best it is a band-aid,
and an expensive one at that.
> But I'd really like for you to illuminate me on what you believe
> "society" defines as "repugnant"?
If society chooses not to pay for the care of children with birth
defects, and other situations where social spending is "necessary"
then the children or other persons involved either spend a great deal
of time in misery or die. Society feels that this alternative is
"repugnant" and not something that a "civilized society" may allow.
Indeed, this may certainly be the case, but regardless society has
voluntarily chosen to take on that burden, because it has no
stomach for the alternative.
>%>One of the greatest tricks of the Republican party is to gather
>%>votes by reducing complex social and economic issues to issues of morality.
>% Morality has a lot to do with social and economic issues.
> How Machiavellian.
> You are correct by current economic theories. But those are exactly why
> the fabric of society is failing.
People are always going to have their own form of morality. It is
unavoidable. Most of the time it is tied up in some form of religion.
Anything that a sufficient number of people believe in (or even a single
person with enough money) is going to have an impact on the economy
just like anything else that involves people.
> ie; Republicans think they can reduce social spending if we all believe in
> Ghod and go to church and keep off the streets. Democrats think that
> increased social spending will produce a utopia. Perot is probably some
> sort of "technocrat" who probably has a derivative utopic vision. Whoever
> wins, we'll probably all be lucky if things don't get extremely
> fucked up (more than they already are).
The Republicans are big on "family values" and the like, and to a degree
I agree with them. With a tightly knit social structure where there is an
extended family to call upon in times of need, the big government safety
net is unnecessary. When times are hard, there should be someone to turn
to to help out until times are better. This should include, but not be
limited to, family and friends.
The problem crops up when the Republicans, probably with the best
of intentions, want everybody to follow *their* morality, dismissing the
validity of others. The "calling for" is generally annoying enough,
but they have a bad tendency to want to write it into *law*.
The Democrats like to throw money at things, usually somebody elses',
convinced that if you throw enough money things have *got* to get better.
What you end up with is an education system which *should* be rolling in
cash and very little in the way of progress.
What Perot would end up with is anybody's guess, although I am fairly
confident it will be a mix of republican "family values", democratic spending,
and plenty of "technology will make all the hurt go away."
And the problems will still be there.
>--
>Kevin Carothers {psivax,philabs,retix,quad1}!ttidca!kevin
--
David Veal ve...@cs.utk.edu (UTK Computer Science Department)
pa14...@utkvm1.utk.edu (UTK Division of Continuing Ed.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cthulu For President! Why choose the lesser evil?
D. Anton Sherwood
>rjw...@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
>>amendment 10:
>>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.
>
>What?!
>I believe the 10th Amendment reads:
> The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be construed
>to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one
>of the United States by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects
>of any foreign state.
You've confused the Tenth (above) and the Eleventh, which reads:
"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed...."
We're left with a puzzle, though. How does the residual powers clause (the
Tenth) oblige the government (not clear which level is meant) to prevent
"the decay of society"? Robert might as well argue that it obliges the
States, since they are reserved the power and not forbidden, to create
Bureaux of Making Sure you Eat your Vegetables.
--
D. Anton Sherwood *\\* das...@well.sf.ca.us *\\* +1 415 664 2229
Libertarian candidate for California Assembly, 12th district
"Smoking marijuana is more fun than drinking beer." -- Phil Ochs
D. Anton Sherwood
> "Civil Servant". If you think otherwise, then how do you think they
> got in there (you are old enough to vote, aren't you)?
Ooo, cue the libertarian flame on State vs Society. Whose turn is it? ;)
mathew
> In the Vice-pres. debate in 1988, Quayle mentioned a book that he was
> reading.
Don't you mean "colouring in"?
mathew
[ Or was it "How to spell 'potato'"? ]
--
Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.
Chris Blackmon
>In article <protein....@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> pro...@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Chris Blackmon) writes:
>>rjw...@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
>>>amendment 10:
>>>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.
>>
>>What?!
>>I believe the 10th Amendment reads:
>> The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be construed
>>to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one
>>of the United States by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects
>>of any foreign state.
>You've confused the Tenth (above) and the Eleventh, which reads:
> "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed...."
Either you've confused it... or the copy of it here in front of my face has
it confused... I've got a program here that will display any article or
amendment of the Constitution with the press of a key... using OS/2's
wonderfull cut and paste ability... I just copied it right from the program.
But... whoever's right......
>We're left with a puzzle, though. How does the residual powers clause (the
>Tenth) oblige the government (not clear which level is meant) to prevent
>"the decay of society"? Robert might as well argue that it obliges the
>States, since they are reserved the power and not forbidden, to create
>Bureaux of Making Sure you Eat your Vegetables.
I wonder how Bush would like this one? (ie... Broccolli?)
Besides... who's to define "the decay of society"? The Supreme Court?
Congress? (who has trouble deciding how to balance their own checkbooks)
The executive?
>--
>D. Anton Sherwood *\\* das...@well.sf.ca.us *\\* +1 415 664 2229
>Libertarian candidate for California Assembly, 12th district
BTW... which district is 12?
>"Smoking marijuana is more fun than drinking beer." -- Phil Ochs
I wouldn't know....
Robert J. Wade
>
>
>>righto rich,
>>amendment 10:
>>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.
>
>What?!
>
>I believe the 10th Amendment reads:
>
> The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be construed
>to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one
>of the United States by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects
>of any foreign state.
>
>Chris Blackmon, N4VGK || In this business, you either lead, follow
nope, that is the 11th. close, but no cigar.
Chris Blackmon
>In article <protein....@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> pro...@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Chris Blackmon) writes:
>>rjw...@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
>>
>>
>>>righto rich,
>>>amendment 10:
>>>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.
>>
>>What?!
>>
>>I believe the 10th Amendment reads:
>>
>> The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be construed
>>to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one
>>of the United States by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects
>>of any foreign state.
>>
>>Chris Blackmon, N4VGK || In this business, you either lead, follow
>nope, that is the 11th. close, but no cigar.
OK... so the program I've got that lists them all out is completely wrong...
sorry.... somebody wrote a bum program... let's see if I know enough to
fix it... :)
Chris Blackmon, N4VGK || In this business, you either lead, follow
Rich Thomson
The preamble does not list the powers of the government. The preamble
states:
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.
Now when I read that, I understand it to say that they are adopting
the Constitution to promote the general welfare. That is not to say
that Constitution gives the government the power (or obligation) to
stop social decay. The powers vested in the government are listed
clearly in the Constitution. "Stopping social decay" may be a goal of
the elected representatives, which they enact through legislation, but
it is not expressly listed as a power of the US Gov. through the
Constitution.
Rich Thomson
> perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
> provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
> secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
> ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of
> America."
>
> The term "social decay" is a direct contra-definition of "domestic
> tranquility". Isn't interpretation fun? Politicians certainly think so.
As I stated in my previous post, the preamble does not give the
government the power to do anything, it merely states that the writers
of the Constitution are adopting it as the framework for their
government in order to achieve those goals for themselves and their
posterity. The powers given to the government do not expressly say
"the government has the obligation to prevent social decay". Many
would argue, in fact, that the social decay we have today is due in
part to government taking over too much control of our lives.
> No. The government doesn't have an obligation to prevent you from
> getting syphillis,
Then why do they have an obligation to prevent social decay?
> but they have an obligation to keep syphillis from
> becoming a public health problem. Public heath and safety is one of
> the largest portions of govt spending (ever hear of FDA? FAA? DOT? EPA?...).
Public health and safety are quantifiable goals, whereas "social
decay" can't be defined by a definition that everyone agrees to.
>As I mentioned in the part of my posting that you left out,
Because I didn't care to talk about that part, but only about this
supposed obligation you're giving the government.
The role of the US govt. as outlined in the constitution is not to act
as an agent for social change, but to protect the rights and property
of individuals. The government is a framework erected to mediate and
resolve disputes between individuals when their rights have been
infringed. The government should not be a social engineer, attempting
to direct society towards some perceived utopia. That, my friends, is
what the Communist Manifesto basically says -- that society evolves
towards a utopian state and the job of government is to push society
in that direction.
Kevin Carothers
%In article <36...@ttidca.TTI.COM> ke...@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
%> No. The government doesn't have an obligation to prevent you from
%> getting syphillis, but they have an obligation to keep syphillis from
%> becoming a public health problem. Public heath and safety is one of
%> the largest portions of govt spending (ever hear of FDA? FAA? DOT? EPA?...).
%
%Bzzzt. Have you read the recent summaries of the budget? "All other: 8.6%"
%doesn't sound like the "largest portions of govt spending".
True. Guaranteed entitlements and defense are much bigger. I've always
considered any defense spending > 15% of the budget to be a WPA-ish
kind of thing, though (that, of course is SERIOUSLY opinionated).
It's STILL over 60 billion, though, which is hardly chump-change. It's also
a sizeable amount to spend on one paragraph in the constitution on a
per-paragraph basis :-)
Kevin Carothers
>In article <protein....@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> pro...@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Chris Blackmon) writes:
>>
>>What?!
>>I believe the 10th Amendment reads:
>> The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be construed
>>to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one
>>of the United States by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects
>>of any foreign state.
>
>You've confused the Tenth (above) and the Eleventh, which reads:
> "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed...."
I don't understand. Chris quoted the 10th perfectly:
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be
construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of
another State or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
And you quoted the Judicial Powers act:
11th Amendment
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to
extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
against one of the United States by citizens of another State or
by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
...So what's the problem?
%
%We're left with a puzzle, though. How does the residual powers clause (the
%Tenth) oblige the government (not clear which level is meant) to prevent
%"the decay of society"? Robert might as well argue that it obliges the
%States, since they are reserved the power and not forbidden, to create
%Bureaux of Making Sure you Eat your Vegetables.
%--
Sounds like Virginia :-) But seriously... That's what the Supreme Court
is for...
Bruce A. Martin
but there were just too many errors to let it pass.
In article <1992Jun30.1...@europa.asd.contel.com> s...@europa.asd.contel.com (Sigurd P. Crossland ) writes:
>Recent postings by James Allan (154) and Fred J McCall (226) mention the
>procedure for selecting a President in the situation where no candidate receives
>a majority of electors' votes. (Anyone think this election will not be decided
>in the House?) The procedure the House of Representatives follows is not quite
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>so well defined,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is simply not so!!!
The process is VERY WELL-DEFINED, partly by the Constitution, partly by Law,
and partly by House (and Senate) rules. Even if the law and rules are changed
between now and then, the process would not change significantly.
The law on the books is VERY specific about the "count" (to the point of
specifying delivery of electoral votes in sextuplicate), and clearly indicates
that it shall be the newly-elected House which receives the "count".
[Theoretically, the old Congress could change the law before the end of December,
so that the OLD Congress would pick, but this possibility is extremely remote.]
The Constitution specifies precisely how the "count" is done, and requires that the
House "shall choose immediately by ballot" (i.e. immediately after the "count")
in the event that there is no majority (i.e. nobody gets 270 electors).
The actual procedures to be used within the House are determined by the House
"Rules", and these are more subject to change -- but changes would have very
little effect. New Rules could be adopted on January 3rd (or Monday the 4th,
perhaps), and credentials could be challenged, but little change in the Rules
is likely and the Constitution says that each state caucuses to determine how
its ONE vote shall be cast.
A quorum for choosing the President is 34 of the states, but any one Rep. is
enough to represent his entire state. Each state caucuses, and casts ONE vote
out of 50. If the state caucus cannot agree, then it votes "divided" (which
is really a non-vote). The winner must get 26 states regardless of how many
are absent or divided. (The Jefferson-Burr incident went to dozens of ballots,
with a number states "divided" until the end.ka)
>has little in the way of precedence,
On the contrary! There is much precedent.
It is not RECENT precedent, but OLD precedent is at least as good.
The last time Congress chose was in 1837, but that was for VP.
In 1825, the House chose a President. In 1800, there was a long,
drawn-out choosing between the top two, who were of the same party
and expected to be Pres. & VP; this led to the twelfth amendment.
In 1872, the precedents were dusted off a bit when Greely died in late
November, but Grant was way ahead and only the "counting" was affected.
(Greely's 66 were scattered, and some went uncounted.)
The Hayes-Tilden thing involved how to count ballots from states in rebellion,
and some duplicate submission of ballots. (Several provisions of the current
election law, mentioned above, were enacted to avoid some of these problems.)
In 1876, the House and Senate decided on validity of ballots, but since there
was a majority when the ballots were finally "counted" the "choosing" process
was not invoked. (The fact that the two chambers were controlled by different
parties may have discouraged throwing the choices there, too.)
>...and will most certainly require Supreme Court clarification.
There is nothing in present law or rules that would seem to require any
court interpretation. There is no chance of major law change, and new
Rules are unlikely -- in any case, you can bet that the wording will be
carefully drafted to avoid any chance of court involvement!
Also, the courts will be very reluctant to get involved.
In fact, the Supreme Court carefully avoids anything close to interference
with the way the Congress runs itself, because the Constitution specifically
gives the Legislative Branch control of its own affairs and the Court has been
extremely careful about separation of powers.
>(How will state representation be chosen
>when determining the constitution of the quorum?
See above.
State caucus quorum is 1. Quorum is 34 for the House. 26 to win.
The Const. says so. Representatives are elected in accordance with Federal
and State law. "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns,
and Qualifications of its own Members" and may expel members, but this is
not done frivolously..
>If only 2/3 of the states need
>be represented and a majority is necessary to win, what prevents 33 Representatives from the same party but different states from conducting a legal
>election and declaring their candidate the majority winner?
Nothing, if the House is in session and no Republicans show up.
However, law determines where and how Congess meets (and the Constitution
prevents one House from moveing elsewhere without consent of the other).
Also, they must choose "immediately".
>Will the Democrat
>and Republican parties contest the make-up of the Independent party's electors?)
>
>Considering that Perot has, at this time, no Independent Party support in the
>House of Representatives, an interesting strategy might be to run for Vice
I expect that a choice by the House would necessarily be Clinton, even if he
came in a poor third! With 31 Dem-controlled delegations now (plus or minus
a few, in Nov.) and 8 split 50-50, there is no other likely outcome. Also,
Clinton would owe so many favors that he might as well go back to Arkansas
and give the reigns to Foley and Mitchell!
As I see it, Perot is Clinton's only chance to win.
Perot won't get 270 electors, but he might keep Bushlips from doing so,
The only hope is that Marrou picks up a few electors (NH? AK?) and pushes
Clinton into 4th place. TYhen, the House would probably pick Perot, since
he's even more of a liberal statist than Bush.
>President and 'select' a strong (Jean Kirkpatrick?) Presidential running mate.
>This way, if the House were to deadlock, the newly elected Vice President would
>assume the Presidency. (Senate can only chose from the top 2 candidates for
>V.P.)
These VP speculations are silly!
No way will the House give up its power to pick the President.
>
>Expect the stock market to begin reacting to the insecurity of what should prove
>to be a most interesting election, barring any serious blunders by the
>candidates from now 'til November.
Yeah. That's the only part of your post I agree with.
The stock market reacts badly to uncertainty, whether its electoral count,
log-rolling in the House, or undeclared agendas (like Perot's).
Oh, well. My bumper sticker is ready:
DON'T BLAME ME. I VOTED LIBERTARIAN.
I'm not going to waste my vote on any of these three!
b...@bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) /|\Master of the Tripods of Hephaestus./|\
[My opinions are my property, belong to me only, and represent no one else!]
# include discaimers.h /***** Marrou/Lord in '92 *****/
# delete BUSHLIPS /***** CALL 800-682-1776 *****/
Doug Holtsinger
> ke...@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
>> The government has an obligation to stop social decay.
> Please show me where it says this in the Constitution; I can't seem
> to find it. The Government has _only_ those powers granted to it in
> the Constitution. Anything else is up to the populace at large and is
> not the responsibility of the govt.
While the Federal government may or may not be empowered to
stop "social decay", the Holy Constitution[tm] does not limit the
power of the States to do the same.
> Repeal the personal income tax; vote Libertarian in 1992.
Free offer to any Libertarian: Stop using government-provided services
and benefits, and I won't force you to pay taxes.
Pete Hartman
>baz...@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar) writes:
>> Tell my why it's the government's job to enforce a particular moral code
>>on someone. Sure, it's extremely uncool for pregnant women to abuse their
>>bodies with smoke and booze, but the job of stopping this is the duty of
>>their family and church.
>> If the parents smoke and drink, perhaps the government should take the
>>child away from the parents. That way the child won't suffer the ill
>>effects of such an obviously "malformed" family.
>> Sheesh.
> Wrong. The government has an obligation to stop social decay. Drinking
> Drugs and tobacco during pregnancy causes birth defects which is a drain
> on society.
Drugs and tobacco during childhood can cause just as many problems, especially
if one were to accept the attitude that Drugs are evil. Cigarette smoke
is more harmful to those around the smoker, since it isn't filtered for
them. So a smoker is putting his or her children at significant cancer
risk. Cancer is also a drain on society. So your own argument still
applies to parents who smoke and drink after the child is born as
well as mothers who do so beforehand.
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
I love the world and if I have to sue for custody, Then I will sue for custody
Pete Hartman
The states or the people, not the federal government.
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
Practical Ego Annihilation for the Zen Novice
1) bang head against wall in a steady shuffle rhythm for 8 hours
Patrick J. McGuinness
Ross Perot in them, no matter what the subject matter being discussed?)
In article <1992Jul1....@dsd.es.com> rtho...@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes:
>In article <1992Jun30.1...@news.acns.nwu.edu>
> til...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Robert Tilden) writes:
>>In article <1992Jun29.2...@dsd.es.com>
> rtho...@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes:
>>>In article <36...@ttidca.TTI.COM>
>>> ke...@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
>>>> Wrong. The government has an obligation to stop social decay.
>>>
>>>Please show me where it says this in the Constitution; I can't seem
>>>to find it.
>> <stuff deleted>
>>
>>If you read the Preamble to the Constitution, Rich, you will find the
>>phrase 'promote the general welfare'. This phrase was (I think) the
>>loophole which allowed the formation of the Social Security system in the
>>1930's.
No. The loophole that allowed New Deal social engineering was, in
constitutional terms, the interstate commerce clause. In political terms,
it was a set of new, agreeable pro-New Deal Justices.
(The Constitution has never been the same since.)
>The preamble does not list the powers of the government. The preamble
>states:
>
> We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more
> perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
> provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
> secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
> ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
> America.
>
>Now when I read that, I understand it to say that they are adopting
>the Constitution to promote the general welfare. That is not to say
>that Constitution gives the government the power (or obligation) to
>stop social decay. The powers vested in the government are listed
>clearly in the Constitution. "Stopping social decay" may be a goal of
>the elected representatives, which they enact through legislation, but
>it is not expressly listed as a power of the US Gov. through the
>Constitution.
Correct. In fact, a Bill of Rights Amendment (9 or 10) reiterates the point
that all powers not enumerated are reserved for the states and the
people.
The Preamble is just that: a preamble. It is not a part of the
Constitution proper.
----------
P. McGuinness
" A society is moral only so long as it is free.
It is free only so long as it is moral."
Patrick J. McGuinness
>
>The role of the US govt. as outlined in the constitution is not to act
>as an agent for social change, but to protect the rights and property
>of individuals. The government is a framework erected to mediate and
>resolve disputes between individuals when their rights have been
>infringed.
You may believe that, and our Founding fathers believed it, but today's
social engineers do not. That won't prevent them from rereading
(if not misreading) the Constitution to get their way.
They will speak of an "organic" Constitution, of how different our
society is, and how too close a reading of the mere words of the
document "robs" it of its true majesty, all in an attempt to
get flexibility to the point of subversion.
It reminds me yet again of the irony of a statement by Arthur
Schlesinger concerning the new deal: he said it was "Hamiltonian
means to acheive Jeffersonian ends."
He didn't realize that when we talk of Government, means are everything.
All social engineers have the same "ends" - utopia.
It's the means - social welfare state, communism, nazism, fascism -
that count.
> The government should not be a social engineer, attempting
>to direct society towards some perceived utopia. That, my friends, is
>what the Communist Manifesto basically says -- that society evolves
>towards a utopian state and the job of government is to push society
>in that direction.
The evils of society must be corrected through institutions that
are strong enough to provide corrective guidance to individual error,
but not so strong as to provide the grave threat of tyranny.
These institutions are the family, the church, the neighborhood,
the community. If we need 'social engineering' let it be from
these bodies, and not from the Government.
--------------
P. McGuinness
fred j mccall 575-3539
>
>
> The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be construed
>to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one
>of the United States by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects
>of any foreign state.
I've got an electronic copy of the Constitution that reads the same
way. It's wrong. The 10th reads, "The powers not delegate to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred....@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Chris Riordon
>In a previous article, mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) says:
>>rege...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George) writes:
>>> In the Vice-pres. debate in 1988, Quayle mentioned a book that he was
>>> reading.
>> ^^^^^^^
>>Don't you mean "colouring in"?
>>
>>[ Or was it "How to spell 'potato'"? ]
>Ya. And you don't know how to spell coloring!
>Fucken idjit.
>--
>=======================
>"Endeavor to persevere"
Well, it may be thinly disguised flame bait, but given that the U.S. has
a vice president who can't spell "potato" ("you spell potatoe, I spell
potato...)
it's just possible that there could be someone this ignorant (and rude) in
in the US. So, to Mr. Polewka, I say:
Gee, Dave, have you ever considered that people in the UK and other countries
may have a different way of spelling "colour"?
No... it couldn't be (could it?) And even if it is true, it's manifestly
clear that the American way is better, so there you "fucken idjit" foreigners.
[Sarcasm mode off for the impaired :)].
Still, with people like Messers Polewka and Quayle, it's no wonder that
the Japanese are selling a lot of cars in the States. (uh-oh better get
my fire retardant underwear on. ;)).
Cheers,
..Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We think sometimes when things don't go the right way, when we suffer
a defeat, that all has ended. Not true. It is only a beginning, always.
Greatness comes not when things always go [well] for you, but the great-
ness comes when you are really tested, when you take some knocks, some
disappointments, when sadness comes. Because only if you have been in
the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the
highest mountain."
-- Richard Milhous Nixon, 1974
?
fred j mccall 575-3539
>
> 10th Amendment
> The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be
> construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
> prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of
> another State or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
>
>
> And you quoted the Judicial Powers act:
>
> 11th Amendment
> The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to
> extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
> against one of the United States by citizens of another State or
> by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
>
> ...So what's the problem?
the problem is that what Chris quoted is NOT the 10th Amendment. Look
it up. Use a paper copy of the Constitution, not an electronic copy.
There is apparently a bad electronic copy floating around the U.S.; I
say this because the electronic copy I have has the same mistake in
it. The copy in the back of my Unabridged Dictionary reads
differently.
Dave Polewka
In a previous article, chr...@sce.carleton.ca (Chris Riordon) says:
>Gee, Dave, have you ever considered that people in the UK and other countries
>may have a different way of spelling "colour"?
Yes. I knew that.
>Still, with people like Messers Polewka and Quayle, it's no wonder that
>the Japanese are selling a lot of cars in the States. (uh-oh better get
>my fire retardant underwear on. ;)).
Oxford English Dictionary -- anagram
*************************************
Chris _iordon: Net Fogy (lax id)
*************************************
--
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Patrick Sugent
>In article <36...@ttidca.TTI.COM> ke...@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
>>
>> I don't understand. Chris quoted the 10th perfectly:
>>
>> 10th Amendment
>> The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be
>> construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
>> prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of
>> another State or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
>
>it up. Use a paper copy of the Constitution, not an electronic copy.
>There is apparently a bad electronic copy floating around the U.S.; I
>say this because the electronic copy I have has the same mistake in
>it. The copy in the back of my Unabridged Dictionary reads
>differently.
Fred McCall is correct. The above is _not_ the tenth amendment. The
tenth amendment reads as he stated in his earlier post.
BTW, can someone mail me this electronic copy. I have an electronic
copy of the Bill of Rights (which is correct), but I always have to go
to a paper copy to look up anything else. (Which may be safer anyway. :-) )
Pat
--
Patrick Sugent
su...@usite-next.uchicago.edu
(708) 447-1771
Pete Hartman
>Free offer to any Libertarian: Stop using government-provided services
>and benefits, and I won't force you to pay taxes.
No, but Uncle Sam will.
Free offer to you: stop uncle sam from taking 30% of my paycheck, and
I'll use private services.
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
"See you guys ar--see you. Er. Great. Fine. Ciao."
As the Bently skidded off into the darkness Ligur said, "Wossat mean?"
"It's Italian," said Hastur. "I think it means 'food'."
fred j mccall 575-3539
>
>In a previous article, mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) says:
>
>>> In the Vice-pres. debate in 1988, Quayle mentioned a book that he was
>>> reading.
>> ^^^^^^^
>>Don't you mean "colouring in"?
>>
>
Except he DID spell it right, not only for where he lives, but in one
of the two accepted ways to spell it here. Perhaps you should pull
your head out and consult a dictionary instead of just being the 'dic'
part of the word?
>Fucken idjit.
Indeed. Spoken as one who should know, no doubt.
Dave Polewka
In a previous article, mcc...@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) says:
>Except he DID spell it right, not only for where he lives, but in one
>of the two accepted ways to spell it here. Perhaps you should pull
>your head out and consult a dictionary instead of just being the 'dic'
>part of the word?
I see you made it into the Top Ten News Submitters by number
of articles for the last period. Good for you!!
Dennis O'Connor
p...@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
] Free offer to you: stop uncle sam from taking 30% of my paycheck, and
] I'll use private services.
Well, we both doubt this will ever happen, but it's enlightening,
and maybe frightening, to look at what you'd have to eschew NOW :
( And remember, the government considers regulating something a SERVICE
to the public. You may disagree with this attitude of course. )
USENET : messages on it go to, thru, and from gov. hardware
Highways : federally funded (and used to blackmail states)
Housing : federally subsidized via the tax code.
Working for a living : very federally regulated.
Getting an education : federally subsidized.
Banks, investments, money : federally regulated/insured/printed.
All electronic communication : federally regulated
Most foods : federally subsidized/inspected/regulated
All drugs : federally regulated
Most drinking water : federally regulated
Using the toilet : waste treatment is federally regulated
Most air : federally "protected"
The list goes on and on. The federal government has it's tentacles in
nearly every thing you do in your life. Hard to believe the Framers
intended this to happen. Hard to believe they could even imagine it.
--
Dennis O'Connor doco...@sedona.intel.com
Andrew Clayton
> >Still, with people like Messers Polewka and Quayle, it's no wonder that
> >the Japanese are selling a lot of cars in the States. (uh-oh better get
> >my fire retardant underwear on. ;)).
>
> Oxford English Dictionary -- anagram
> *************************************
> Chris _iordon: Net Fogy (lax id)
> *************************************
This anagram shit is real old, Polewka. Come up with something a
little less repetitive, eh?
[You aren't as boring as Keegan-Kebbin, if that is any
consolation]
> =======================
> "Endeavor to persevere"
> =======================
"parse reverend eve, too."
//&&&&/////&&////////////&&//////////
/&&//&&//////////////////&&//////////
/&&&///////&&/////&&&&&//&&&&&///////
//&&&&/////&&////&&//&&//&&//&&//////
////&&&////&&////&&//&&//&&//&&//////
/&&//&&////&&/////&&&&&//&&//&&////&&
//&&&&//////&&///////&&//&&//&&////&&
//////////////////&&&&///////////////
Dac
--
munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac David Andrew Clayton. // _| _ _
prolix!dac%ey...@labtam.oz.au Canberra, Australia \X/ (_](_](_
d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au I post .
prolix!d...@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au . . I am. +61 6 290 2215
Kevin Kretz
I have never responded to a post, but your first premise - that
it's the government's 'job' to prevent moral decay - really got my
attention.
Not that this thought isn't shared by many people; it's just
that those people who share your idea are usually either illiterate
and incapable of expressing it, or they are too busy advocating the
federal regulation of bedtime and the dictating by UNICEF of foreign
policy.
You should check out the Constitution, and, if you see anything
about the Government having to baby-sit the People, I'd like to see
your copy. Mine reads the other way around.
Do you want a Government, incapable of balancing a checkbook,
to tell you what to eat and drink!? Where to go!?
You are advocating fascism, just as many who are well-intentioned but
ill-informed.
Bullwinkle
>In article <1992Jul1....@dsd.es.com> rtho...@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes:
>>In article <36...@ttidca.TTI.COM>
>>
>>The role of the US govt. as outlined in the constitution is not to act
>>as an agent for social change, but to protect the rights and property
>>of individuals. The government is a framework erected to mediate and
>>resolve disputes between individuals when their rights have been
>>infringed.
>You may believe that, and our Founding fathers believed it, but today's
>social engineers do not. That won't prevent them from rereading
>(if not misreading) the Constitution to get their way.
>They will speak of an "organic" Constitution, of how different our
>society is, and how too close a reading of the mere words of the
>document "robs" it of its true majesty, all in an attempt to
>get flexibility to the point of subversion.
[stuff deleted]
>--------------
>P. McGuinness
This reminds me of the children's game where everyone sits in
a circle. One person whispers something in the person's ear
next to him. The message goes all around the circle in this way
until it gets back to the originator of the message. Usually
the final form of the message is completely different from the
original. In this same manner our Constitution and its
original intent gets changed by different court cases. Instead
of always refering to the Constitution, many court cases are
built upon previous ones, etc..., etc... I think that stinks.
It does make me wonder where it is leading us to. Unfortunately,
I think, it is taking us away from freedom and liberty! And
remember, the more laws that are passed, the less free we are!
BTW, I hope everyone has a happy 4th of July... Whooppee!
J. Wallace
Rich Thomson
USENET is available by commercial services now; we use UUNET. I
remember seeing (in news.admin, perhaps?) a statistic quoted that at
this point only a small fraction of USENET traffic *must* be
transported by a govt. machine.
>Housing : federally subsidized via the tax code.
I can buy housing without the govt.
>Working for a living : very federally regulated.
I can work for a living without the govt. (I might have to resort to
strange mechanisms to avoid the IRS, though).
>Getting an education : federally subsidized.
I can get an education without the govt.
>Banks, investments, money : federally regulated/insured/printed.
I can borrow money without the govt. -- probably have to pay loan
shark interest rates, though.
>All electronic communication : federally regulated
Excuse me? I don't have to pay a modem tax or anything else to
connect my PC to someone else's PC -- just the phone bill.
>Most foods : federally subsidized/inspected/regulated
I can grow my own food without the federal govt.
>All drugs : federally regulated
>Most drinking water : federally regulated
>Using the toilet : waste treatment is federally regulated
>Most air : federally "protected"
>
>The list goes on and on. The federal government has it's tentacles in
>nearly every thing you do in your life. Hard to believe the Framers
>intended this to happen. Hard to believe they could even imagine it.
I agree, but there seems to be some confusion here. Just because the
govt. regulates something doesn't mean that Libertarians are against
it. My understanding is that all this regulation and control is
coerced from the individual. I happen to think that the USGS does a
great service to the country by providing its cartographic services at
a minimal cost. If the govt. support of the agency were removed and I
were forced to pay higher map costs, that would be fine with me too.
What would be even better, though, is if I could decide where my tax
dollars get spent.
Although I've never been taxed so much in my life as I am now, I would
might stop complaining about the amount removed if I had more control
over its ultimate landing place.
-- Rich
--
Repeal the personal income tax; vote Libertarian in 1992.
Dennis O'Connor
rtho...@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes:
] In article <DOCONNOR.9...@hopi.sedona.intel.com>
] doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
] >to look at what you'd have to eschew NOW :
] >
] >USENET : messages on it go to, thru, and from gov. hardware
]
] USENET is available by commercial services now; we use UUNET. I
] remember seeing (in news.admin, perhaps?) a statistic quoted that at
] this point only a small fraction of USENET traffic *must* be
] transported by a govt. machine.
But all message do go thru gov't machines whether they need to or not.
Therefor, to completely eschew gov't "services", you'd have to stop
posting, and you'd have to be careful waht you read.
] >Housing : federally subsidized via the tax code.
]
] I can buy housing without the govt.
Not without gov't interference you can't. Housing prices are very
market-driven, and the market currently depends on the subsidy
mortgage holders get on the interest they pay, via the mortgage
interest deduction in the Fed tax code. Do away with that deduction,
and you'll cause major upheaval in the housing market.
] >Working for a living : very federally regulated.
]
] I can work for a living without the govt. (I might have to resort to
] strange mechanisms to avoid the IRS, though).
Not legally you can't. Worker safety, wage and benefit regulation,
and of course SocSec and Income taxes.
] >Getting an education : federally subsidized.
]
] I can get an education without the govt.
Where ? Can you name an educational institution that
1. receives no federal funds, directly or indirectly
2. is not forced to conform with federal regulations
Admitidly, there is self-education, but you won't get a job
based on a degree you awarded to yourself.
] >All electronic communication : federally regulated
]
] Excuse me? I don't have to pay a modem tax or anything else to
] connect my PC to someone else's PC -- just the phone bill.
The Feds regulate the phone companies, do they not ?
] >Most foods : federally subsidized/inspected/regulated
]
] I can grow my own food without the federal govt.
Do oyu have enough land to support yourself this way ?
Some people do ( I do, in fact ), but not most.
] >All drugs : federally regulated
] >Most drinking water : federally regulated
] >Using the toilet : waste treatment is federally regulated
] >Most air : federally "protected"
] >
] >The list goes on and on. The federal government has it's tentacles in
] >nearly every thing you do in your life. Hard to believe the Framers
] >intended this to happen. Hard to believe they could even imagine it.
]
] I agree, but there seems to be some confusion here. Just because the
] govt. regulates something doesn't mean that Libertarians are against
] it. My understanding is that all this regulation and control is
] coerced from the individual.
Not neccesarily. Individuals can agree to be regulated and controlled.
To greater or lesser extent, that's what every contract does.
] I happen to think that the USGS does a great service to the country
] by providing its cartographic services at a minimal cost.
This is an interstingly example : this work could be done by
a private company. But there are the legal issues ( property
boundary dispute resolution ) and national security issues
the tend to support having the governement do it.
] Although I've never been taxed so much in my life as I am now, I would
] might stop complaining about the amount removed if I had more control
] over its ultimate landing place.
Is there anyone of any political persuasion that doesn't feel this way ?
Rich Thomson
with Perot anymore]
In article <DOCONNOR.9...@potato.sedona.intel.com>
doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
[long exchange of stuff that is regulated by federal govt.]
Dennis I am in complete agreement with you that the govt. has its hands
way too deep into our pockets. Yet, I am continuously met by people
who insist that our problems stem from not enough regulation instead
of too much.
The things you listed are indeed regulated. Many Libertarians would
insist that these functions would be better off left to private
organizations and individuals than in the hands of the government. I
haven't investigated each area we discussed in detail to know whether
or not I agree with this. Basically the Libertarians are closer to my
own personal philosophy -- moreso than the demopublicans, so I vote
for them.
I don't think Lib's necessarily want *nothing* to do with govt. --
they just believe that the scope of govt. has grown beyond its
original intent. Each of the areas you mention would probably be good
examples of this.
Van Snyder
>] >Getting an education : federally subsidized.
>]
>] I can get an education without the govt.
>
>Where ? Can you name an educational institution that
> 1. receives no federal funds, directly or indirectly
There are a lot of small private institutions of higher education that
receive absolutely no direct assistance from the federal government, or
government at any other level. E-mail me for the name of at least one.
What do you have in mind when you mention indirect federal assistance?
Do you mean the guy at McDonnell-Douglas who gets his tuition partly
paid by his employer, and his employer has government contracts? There
are lots of people who don't get that kind of subsidy but get an education
anyway.
> 2. is not forced to conform with federal regulations
There are no federal standards for post-secondary education. Standards for
post-secondary education are set by regional accreditation organizations,
which are essentially old-boy networks of the traditional colleges and
universities, i.e. day-only classes for 18-24 year old full-time students,
with full-time unionized faculty. They, of course, think that any university
that uses a different approach must necessarily do an inferior job.
There certainly are federal regulations that all colleges and universities
must obey, like how they forward deductions for their employees' tax payments
to the IRS, but these apply to almost every business, not just education.
--
What fraction of Americans believe | Van Snyder
Wrestling is real and NASA is fake? | vsn...@math.jpl.nasa.gov
John Q
Good! It's about time somebody did! Wonderful! Now, whom do I telephone
to point out the social decay I see around me so that the government can
fulfill its obligation and stop it? For example, too many people are going
to church and hanging out in front of abortion clinics. They could be doing
something productive with their lives. Let's start with them. Then we can
move on to those idiot police and DEA agents who could be out catching
criminals instead of busting drug users and directing traffic in front of
churches on sunday. That's social decay if ever I saw it. Who do I call?
>Drinking
> Drugs and tobacco during pregnancy causes birth defects which is a drain
> on society. Even small amounts can cause toxemia or worse.
Toxemia? You've got more chance of getting that from a kitty litter box
than you do from "drinking drugs and tobacco". Did you also know, hotshot,
that a MAN'S consumption of alcohol, tobacco and many drugs causes defects
in sperm that can then cause birth defects? So while women can drink, smoke
and use drugs until shortly before becoming pregnant, men can't EVER do these
things. Check your penis at the door.
> Although you don't mention it in your posting, I would bet you have similar
> right-wingnut views on abortion.
Well, actually, the conservative view would be to keep the government out
of it, but who's counting?
> I know it sounds elitist, but I personally think there are some people
> who shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues which they don't understand.
They shouldn't be allowed to have kids, either!
> Jawaid, I work once a month in a co-op with several handicapped children
> and adults. Try spending a week in a similar environment and tell me how
> many times questions of morality come into your mind.
Like the question of how the very same government can cut funding for these
people while it's prohibiting abortion? Duh!
Q
Tony A. Gibbens
In article <1992Jul6.2...@dsd.es.com> rtho...@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes:
>In article <DOCONNOR.9...@hopi.sedona.intel.com>
> doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>>to look at what you'd have to eschew NOW :
>>
>>USENET : messages on it go to, thru, and from gov. hardware
>
>USENET is available by commercial services now; we use UUNET. I
>remember seeing (in news.admin, perhaps?) a statistic quoted that at
>this point only a small fraction of USENET traffic *must* be
>transported by a govt. machine.
>
>>Housing : federally subsidized via the tax code.
>I can buy housing without the govt.
Highly unlikely unless you plan on living in a home-made tent somewhere
outside the US boarders. If you think of it, it is extreemly unlikely that
you can find or build a home that doesn't somehow have something connected to
some sort of Government regulation and or subsidization. This is one of the
arguments that I have Libertarians. They tend to see relations more direct
than they truely are.
>
>>Working for a living : very federally regulated.
>I can work for a living without the govt. (I might have to resort to
>strange mechanisms to avoid the IRS, though).
Once again, highly unlikely. (note, same song) It is extreemly unlikely that
you can find or start a business which is totally free of Government
regulation and or subsidization.
>
>>Getting an education : federally subsidized.
>I can get an education without the govt.
This is (for the most part) the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. If a
school itself isn't directly funded (either publicly or tax shelters for
private institutions) there is, most likely, there is at least one instructor
in the institution has in someway benifited by government funding (GI bill,
pell grant, govn't loans, etc). In addition, what about tax incentives for
equipment gifts/loans to institutions. Even this aside, there are still other
ways in which govn't aids (subsidizes) education. Hell, if you want to get
picky, think about the zoning laws permitting the institution to exist in a
certain area. The zoning laws are, in a sense, a source of subsidization (
sewers, trash pickup, police, fire, etc).
Now the obvious point here is "what about home education?". Well, if you can
find someone to teach you (or your child) which did not in someway profit
from the above (note, this is recursive, ie the teacher's teacher), then
perhaps. But note, if you are taught in your home, look at the housing
statement above and re-read these two paragraphs.
>
>>Banks, investments, money : federally regulated/insured/printed.
>
>I can borrow money without the govt. -- probably have to pay loan
>shark interest rates, though.
Perhaps. You can also have your legs broken for having a late payment.
Personly, I like my legs.
>
>>All electronic communication : federally regulated
>
>Excuse me? I don't have to pay a modem tax or anything else to
>connect my PC to someone else's PC -- just the phone bill.
And you think that the phone companies have NEVER recieved any federal help?
Or, do you think that over your phone lines, there is no federal regulation?
wake up, it isn't that simple.
>
>>Most foods : federally subsidized/inspected/regulated
>
>I can grow my own food without the federal govt.
Assuming that you can get seeds which in no way have any govn't
regulation/inspection/subsidization (same for any soil additives). Note, there
is still the obvious question of the clean air/water regulations permitting
you to grow food which is safe to eat.
>
>>All drugs : federally regulated
>>Most drinking water : federally regulated
>>Using the toilet : waste treatment is federally regulated
>>Most air : federally "protected"
>>
>>The list goes on and on. The federal government has it's tentacles in
>>nearly every thing you do in your life. Hard to believe the Framers
>>intended this to happen. Hard to believe they could even imagine it.
>
>I agree, but there seems to be some confusion here. Just because the
>govt. regulates something doesn't mean that Libertarians are against
>it. My understanding is that all this regulation and control is
>coerced from the individual. I happen to think that the USGS does a
>great service to the country by providing its cartographic services at
>a minimal cost. If the govt. support of the agency were removed and I
>were forced to pay higher map costs, that would be fine with me too.
>What would be even better, though, is if I could decide where my tax
>dollars get spent.
>
>Although I've never been taxed so much in my life as I am now, I would
>might stop complaining about the amount removed if I had more control
>over its ultimate landing place.
>
> -- Rich
> Repeal the personal income tax; vote Libertarian in 1992.
Almost NOTHING is as simple as a first look would suggest. If you are
advocating a massive change, you should at least have a more than simple
understanding of the system whose change you are advocating.
Please note the above statement was not pointed at Rich but rather, anyone
proposing leaping before looking
vote informed
t...@ecn.purdue.edu
(Tony A. Gibbens)
Pete Hartman
>rtho...@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes:
>] In article <DOCONNOR.9...@hopi.sedona.intel.com>
>] doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>] >to look at what you'd have to eschew NOW :
>] >USENET : messages on it go to, thru, and from gov. hardware
>] USENET is available by commercial services now; we use UUNET. I
>] remember seeing (in news.admin, perhaps?) a statistic quoted that at
>] this point only a small fraction of USENET traffic *must* be
>] transported by a govt. machine.
>But all message do go thru gov't machines whether they need to or not.
>Therefor, to completely eschew gov't "services", you'd have to stop
>posting, and you'd have to be careful waht you read.
This argument can be turned on its head though--perhaps it is the
government subscribing to Usenet services rather than vice
versa. As Rich Thomson wrote, there are other paths that do not rely
in any way on government machines. If the government machines want to
participate, I have no problem with that, but I'm not relying on them,
and therefore am not using their "services".
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
Her voice sounded like something that lurks in the long grass,
visible only by the twitching of its ears,
until something young and tender wobbles by.
Dave Polewka
In a previous article, d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) says:
>This anagram shit is real old, Polewka. Come up with something a
>little less repetitive, eh?
>[You aren't as boring as Keegan-Kebbin, if that is any
>consolation]
Who is Keegan-Kebbin?
>> "Endeavor to persevere"
>> =======================
> "parse reverend eve, too."
"I post, therefore I am" -- anagrams
**********************************
1. I fret this ape, Romeo.
2. I-roam-to-peer fetish.
3. Fop's Theorem: A.I. rite.
**********************************
--
Peter Wong
Constitution. It comes just before the enumeration of the specific powers
of Congress. though stopping social decay is not listed, it can be
reasonably be construed as "promoting the general welfare." One's
definition of social decay is another issue altogether. A lot can be done
in the name of the general welfare and much of the wording of most laws can
be made consistent with powers granted in the constitution, though they
don't necessarily do so.
-Peter
James J. Lippard
The preamble gives the goals, the rest of the Constitution gives the
means. Article I sections 8 and 9 says exactly what Congress can and
cannot do, with further and quite significant limitations in the 9th
and 10th Amendments:
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.
Amendment 10: 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.
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Karl Denninger
>
>The preamble gives the goals, the rest of the Constitution gives the
>means. Article I sections 8 and 9 says exactly what Congress can and
>cannot do, with further and quite significant limitations in the 9th
>and 10th Amendments:
>
>Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
> shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
> people.
>
>Amendment 10: 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.
These two amendments became used toilet paper long ago. There is, for all
practical purpose, no Amendment IX or X.
WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE USA, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.
The founding fathers are turning over in their graves, of that I am certain.
We, as individuals and citizens, have abdicated our authority and control
over the process in this country. We have no one to blame for this but
ourselves.
Historically, once rights have been abdicated, there has been only one
way to regain them, and that is through violence. I don't like this
reality, and thus speak out at every opportunity against those who would
abdicate even more of our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, lest we find
ourselves in exactly that position.
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Barry Schwartz
b...@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
]Oh, well. My bumper sticker is ready:
]
] DON'T BLAME ME. I VOTED LIBERTARIAN.
]
]I'm not going to waste my vote on any of these three!
Epitaph:
HERE LIES
BRUCE A. MARTIN
WHOSE VOTE WAS
MERELY WASTED
--
Barry Schwartz tras...@crud.mn.org