From my perspective, we are the government, or should be. So saying the government shouldn't take care of people who take care of themselves is hard to parse:
The people shouldn't take care of the people who take care of themselves?
By the identity relation, people necessarily always take care of the people that take care of themselves.
IMO the problem isn't "the government" but the line of seperation between the government and the people. It's a conslidation of power that was grabbed on the pretense of protecting ourselves from ourselves.
yaaarrrgg;1342966 wrote: I read the Constitution and social programs are clearly supported. If some service is beneficial to more than one person, we can consider providing them as part of the general welfare. And good social/economic policy also constitutes defense, since it's already known that social disorder occurs when extreme poverty is left unchecked. If our country were smarter, it would take an equal interest in stabilizing developing countries through humanitarian work, as it does towards destroying the ones that have grown up not to our liking. Hard to be painted as an enemy by a lunatic or dictator, when we've already made friends around the world with the majority of populations.
yaaarrrgg;1345806 wrote: It [child nutrition bill] falls squarely under general welfare and common defense. That's right, WELFARE.
yaaarrrgg;1345878 wrote: The whole point of the Constitution was to create the foundation of a better society, and escape English rule. To prevent the arbitrary taxation, and to give people representation. The notion that "the" founders wanted this or that is oversimplifying the history to align it to a modern political viewpoint. Some of the founders wanted a strong central government that emulated England, and others favored a decentralized approach. Some, like Jefferson, saw banks and corporations as top level threats, equal to standing armies. Many of them thought the people were too stupid to self rule, and others (like Jackson later) nurtured the more modern idea of U.S. democracy.
It's become fairly trendy since Ron Paul to call any and every social policy "unconstitutional." Though by the same logic, I don't see "school lunches" listed as an exception when Congress is defining taxes to provide for the health and happiness of the U.S.. This line of attack is not very far off from birthers calling Obama's presidency unconstitutional. I mean if we are going this route, I can equally claim that libertarianism itself is unconstitutional. Anything that the majority of people vote for, that improves the standard of living for a majority of people, or provided long term cost savings for the whole nation, would fall under general welfare. It doesn't seem implausible that providing better nutrition and education would cut heath and social costs later on down the road. But even if it didn't, like it or not, even bread and circuses are consistent with the Constitution's open wording.
Ironically though, Ron Paul libertarians might suffer from a case of "beware what you wish for" if they ever got exactly what they wanted. Living under arbitrary taxation of an empire across the ocean isn't a whole lot different than living under the rule of a multinational corporation that's monopolized a given market. They have no vested interest in local communities, and if you aren't a major shareholder, forget any representation. You can gripe about paying arbitrary taxes, only to turn around and pay the arbitrary prices set by a monopoly which -- after it becomes big enough -- also owns and operates the government in the market as well.
Ahso!;1283933 wrote: I'll do a BTS.Which he did, in spades
. If anyone wants to read it, click the link.