Here is what liberals, socialist, and communist need to understand

General welfare is general, which includes infrastructure for the collective, not providing individual needs. Your opinion and all other liberal programs are badtardizing the Constitution. Welfare is a state level and below issue.

 

Exactly right. The "general welfare" is general. A program that benefits ALL Citizens is for the "general welfare"; roads, defense, etc. In the case where one subset of the citizenry is forcibly taxed to provide an exclusive benefit to another subset, that is not "general welfare", because it only benefits some of the citizenry, at the expense of the rest.

 

Tell that to ghengis khan

 

well, "defense" has only benefited a tiny few in the last few decades. there isn't a single military conflict the US has engaged in in the past 40 years that has benefited the citizenry or been about their "defense"

So, please spare us.

 

While I have never met Trump, I do know a business man who knows him well. He says Trump is a strongly opinionated man, but does listen to others and ask opinions- but only from those whom he respects or wishes to include in his projects.

I tend to do the same; I think the opinion of any person gains or loses credibility with the quality of the source. I also give family a lot more slack than the average person I know- but I realize I'm doing it and why. That too has a limit. While you can't choose who your are related to, you can choose how you relate to them. It would seem appropriate for the children of a president to act respectfully and know how and when to keep quiet. Wish more young people knew how and when to do that.

 

What does this have to do with anything being discussed?

 

How about a proof by contradiction?

"I am not entitled to what I earned."

What then? A religious person would consider all of their earnings from God Almighty and they are merely stewards. If I am not entitled to what I earn, who is? Is it the poor? Extreme poor? The sick? The strongest? The GOP? The DEMs? The government? The Pope?

No, you are entitled to what you earned. Is it fair? Nope. Is it right? Not sure. When I was young I worked 45 hours per week as a hard laborer and made 1/30th what I make now. It is very hard to rationalize compensation, but it appears that one is entitled to what he/she has earned or inherited.

 

where did you get lost?

 

OIC.. You're of the opinion that we'd all be just fine, cozy, and safe in the absence of a national military, and therefore, defense spending is not to be considered considered for the "general welfare"?

 

And I know thousands who believe Mexico is paying for a wall. Ill informed beliefs do not prove a point.

My original point was that complaining that the government has no right to take your money and also complaining that the government hasn't increased the amount of money they send you is paradoxical.

 

No, I'm pointing out that we have had no credible threat to this country, or it's citizenry in decades, yet we spend more on defense than every other 1st world nation combined, and it only benefits military contractors and politicians.

So, please spare us. foodstamps is just as much of the "general welfare" as defense.

 

The OP's post pretty much says it all. My children ARE ENTITLED to have what I earn IF I choose to give it to them. Does anyone not understand that?

 

Based on your argument, NEITHER is "general welfare".

 

Actually John Locke is dead and I'm merely reiterating what he established in 1690 in Chapter 5 on the Natural Right "Of Property" in his Second Treatise of Civil Government.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.txt

The human labor of the person establishes their right to possess property. A machine does not establish that right because a machine does not expend human labor. Investments don't establish that right because an investment is not labor. And, as finally noted in the last sentence it is both useless and dishonest for any person to possess more than they can possibly USE (not spend or invest) in their lifetime.

While natural rights had been referred to throughout written history there's no dispute among scholars that Locke was the first person to fully establish by compelling argument based upon logical deduction that Natural Rights literally exist in his Second Treatise of Civil Government. In that same Treatise he also challenged anyone to present any legitimate argument that would require Locke to re-address his own arguments. No one during the remainder of John Locke lifetime or in the 312 years since he died in 1704 has ever put forward a valid argument to discredit Locke's establishment of natural rights including the Natural Right "Of Property" in Chapter 5.

The writings of Karl Marx (Communist Manifesto) and Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations) have virtually no meaning because both are economic philosophies based upon "possession without the right to possess" which is another way of simply saying "Theft."

Does it really matter to the victim that's been robbed if the theft is rationalized by someone quoting Smith or Marx? The theft of property is the only thing that matters and it doesn't matter who the thief is quoting when they rob you.

 

Nor did he do it with inherited money!

 

Yep. It would be *general* welfare if we each got a Soc Sec check from birth! Otherwise it is individual welfare.

 

Locke or Marx, it's no different. When my parents pass, if you try to move into their house, I'm having you evicted.

 

*YOU* haven't benefited from our military preventing China from taking over the South China Sea and all the shipping lanes bringing products to our shores?

 

Who wants what you have? Are you saying you don't want t pay taxes? Then go live in the hills and stop using OUR commons

 

So I guess you're not a fan of Thomas Jefferson?

Because he wanted to fund government SOLEY on a large inheritance tax. For several reasons.

1, That would fund the government without taking from those who have little to give
2. It would prevent the stratification of wealth

 

Wait a minute! Even in Locke's time people used axes, wagons, and horses. Those *are* machines according to physics. They all multiply the human muscle capability. Using *your* viewpoint, man's property could only exist what he could do with his bare hands. To cut down a tree he would have to scratch through it with his fingernails!

And *investment* would be buying the axe, the wagon, and the horse.

The piece that Locke didn't address was what quantity made up that "use". What I might be able to use may not be the same as you. So it is a pretty objective thing to determine.

Strictly speaking, Marx *does* imbue the right to posses with the labor expended by each individual. Marx actually says in the Communist Manifesto that if you don't work then you don't eat. I don't agree with Marx's philosophy but even he recognized that labor and ownership of the profits of the collective went together.

Adam Smith I'm going to have to think about!

 

I think if you read a little deeper, both Smith and Jefferson were against the idea of a "landed gentry", a carry-over from feudal times where the nobles controlled all the lands. Since almost everything then was based on agriculture in some way they both looked for ways to prevent the landed gentry from becoming petty nobles in the new world.

In fact, what Jefferson *really* believed was in no taxation of American citizens at all. Only in fees and import duties and such!

 

Wrong, he got his enormous wealth from first monopolizing and then overpricing his products. And then cleverly "donating" many computers to needy schools so that there are now depended on his type of computers/software.

 

And........?

They still are entitled to what was given to them. If someone gives you something, it becomes yours.