Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [RLC-Action] "... promote the general welfare, ..."

Expand Messages
  • Toby Nixon
    I agree with Thomas. The key point is the modifier general . The Founding Fathers had no clue what welfare was and certainly weren t referring to the modern
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree with Thomas. The key point is the modifier "general". The Founding
      Fathers had no clue what "welfare" was and certainly weren't referring to
      the modern form of government-provided "welfare" by this term in the
      preamble or in Article 1 Section 8. They weren't talking about direct
      transfer payments to individuals, but to capital infrastructure, services,
      and legal structures that benefit society as a whole.

      The government "promotes the general welfare" most by helping us to defend
      our lives, liberty, and property. The welfare of everyone is promoted by a
      stable system of laws and protection of property rights that enables
      investment without concern that those investments will be lost to thieves.
      The "welfare system" your liberal friend defends is exactly the opposite of
      that, since it depends on the violation of property rights to fund it.

      I do not buy the argument that welfare payments to the poor do in fact
      promote the protection of property rights, by appeasing the masses who would
      otherwise revolt and take the property of the rich -- in other words,
      welfare payments are a form of protection racket (giving in to extortion).
      This presumes the most base characteristics on poor people, and I maintain
      that many of the most proud and honest people I know are or were poor. The
      fact is that the welfare system has done immense damage to individual
      character in this country by creating an entitlement mentality where none
      previously existed. And I speak as one who knows, who grew up on AFDC, food
      stamps, Medicaid, government surplus food, and housing subsidies, and hated
      what that dependency mentality did to my father.

      -- Toby


      -----Original Message-----
      From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of Thomas Sewell
      Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 6:55 PM
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [RLC-Action] "... promote the general welfare, ..."

      I'd start with a definition of the adjective General:

      http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?&s=general

      So this would apply to things like a canal that affects the vast majority of
      people, but not something like cash for poor people because only poor people
      would benefit, thus making that an instance of providing for a specific
      group's welfare, not the general welfare.

      Then move on to discuss how the main part of the constitution that mentions
      the general welfare doesn't provide for ANY "rights", it merely enumerates
      powers that the Federal government may exercise.

      So since these sections define purposes and government powers and not
      "rights", how could it indicate any sort of "right to welfare"?

      Then there is the extreme example case. What if everyone in the US was poor.
      If they all have a "right" to welfare, it's impossible for them all to
      exercise that right at the same time. This is not an issue with "true"
      rights, like say, freedom of speech.

      Of course, government welfare and redistribution of wealth is really just
      theft at gunpoint. Why do we call it welfare just because the government
      does it?

      Thomas


      -----Original Message-----
      From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com]On
      Behalf Of DGHarrison
      Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 7:34 PM
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [RLC-Action] "... promote the general welfare, ..."


      I am about to embark on a discussion with a flaming liberal who thinks that

      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.

      defines the people's right to "welfare" from the Federal government. It's
      pointless to try to convince the wacky liberal that started the argument,
      but there are about 100 others on the line, and some of them might be led
      astray by this jerk, unless I provide an adequate counter point. Does anyone
      have a quick argument to toss back at this moron? Maybe a link to a
      discussion about it? I've been working to encourage members of the group to
      look into the RLC, and they are looking for answers to such word games
      played by the Left.

      Doug Harrison
      Minnesota




      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

      Visit your group "RLC-Action" on the web.

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • John Mitchel, LtCol, USAF (Ret
      Madison did not want the General Welfare clause in the Constitution, but Hamilton did. Hamilton won the argument, but only after he convinced Madison that
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Madison did not want the "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution, but Hamilton did.
        Hamilton won the argument, but only after he convinced Madison that General Welfare was
        broad in nature and only provided an introduction to specifically enumerated government powers.  Hope this helps.
         
        Mitch

        Toby Nixon <toby@...> wrote:
        I agree with Thomas. The key point is the modifier "general". The Founding
        Fathers had no clue what "welfare" was and certainly weren't referring to
        the modern form of government-provided "welfare" by this term in the
        preamble or in Article 1 Section 8. They weren't talking about direct
        transfer payments to individuals, but to capital infrastructure, services,
        and legal structures that benefit society as a whole.

        The government "promotes the general welfare" most by helping us to defend
        our lives, liberty, and property. The welfare of everyone is promoted by a
        stable system of laws and protection of property rights that enables
        investment without concern that those investments will be lost to thieves.
        The "welfare system" your liberal friend defends is exactly the opposite of
        that, since it depends on the violation of property rights to fund it.

        I do not buy the argument that welfare payments to the poor do in fact
        promote the protection of property rights, by appeasing the masses who would
        otherwise revolt and take the property of the rich -- in other words,
        welfare payments are a form of protection racket (giving in to extortion).
        This presumes the most base characteristics on poor people, and I maintain
        that many of the most proud and honest people I know are or were poor. The
        fact is that the welfare system has done immense damage to individual
        character in this country by creating an entitlement mentality where none
        previously existed. And I speak as one who knows, who grew up on AFDC, food
        stamps, Medicaid, government surplus food, and housing subsidies, and hated
        what that dependency mentality did to my father.

        -- Toby


        -----Original Message-----
        From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of Thomas Sewell
        Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 6:55 PM
        To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [RLC-Action] "... promote the general welfare, ..."

        I'd start with a definition of the adjective General:

        http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?&s=general

        So this would apply to things like a canal that affects the vast majority of
        people, but not something like cash for poor people because only poor people
        would benefit, thus making that an instance of providing for a specific
        group's welfare, not the general welfare.

        Then move on to discuss how the main part of the constitution that mentions
        the general welfare doesn't provide for ANY "rights", it merely enumerates
        powers that the Federal government may exercise.

        So since these sections define purposes and government powers and not
        "rights", how could it indicate any sort of "right to welfare"?

        Then there is the extreme example case. What if everyone in the US was poor.
        If they all have a "right" to welfare, it's impossible for them all to
        exercise that right at the same time. This is not an issue with "true"
        rights, like say, freedom of speech.

        Of course, government welfare and redistribution of wealth is really just
        theft at gunpoint. Why do we call it welfare just because the government
        does it?

        Thomas


        -----Original Message-----
        From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com]On
        Behalf Of DGHarrison
        Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 7:34 PM
        To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [RLC-Action] "... promote the general welfare, ..."


        I am about to embark on a discussion with a flaming liberal who thinks that

        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.

        defines the people's right to "welfare" from the Federal government. It's
        pointless to try to convince the wacky liberal that started the argument,
        but there are about 100 others on the line, and some of them might be led
        astray by this jerk, unless I provide an adequate counter point. Does anyone
        have a quick argument to toss back at this moron? Maybe a link to a
        discussion about it? I've been working to encourage members of the group to
        look into the RLC, and they are looking for answers to such word games
        played by the Left.

        Doug Harrison
        Minnesota




        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

        Visit your group "RLC-Action" on the web.

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





        Yahoo! Groups Links









        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
        Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
        http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/PdSolB/TM
        --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLC-Action/

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




      • Ray Holtorf
        Go to the federalist papers. Madison and Jefferson wrote extensively about how they feared the general welfare clause would be misunderstood, misrepresented,
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Go to the federalist papers. Madison and Jefferson
          wrote extensively about how they feared the "general
          welfare" clause would be misunderstood,
          misrepresented, and misused. I can't remember exactly
          who insisted it be in there).

          -Ray

          --- DGHarrison <DGHarrison@...> wrote:

          > I am about to embark on a discussion with a flaming
          > liberal who thinks that
          >
          > 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.
          >
          > defines the people's right to "welfare" from the
          > Federal government.
          > It's pointless to try to convince the wacky liberal
          > that started the
          > argument, but there are about 100 others on the
          > line, and some of them
          > might be led astray by this jerk, unless I provide
          > an adequate counter
          > point. Does anyone have a quick argument to toss
          > back at this moron?
          > Maybe a link to a discussion about it? I've been
          > working to encourage
          > members of the group to look into the RLC, and they
          > are looking for
          > answers to such word games played by the Left.
          >
          > Doug Harrison
          > Minnesota
          >
          >




          ____________________________________________________
          Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
          http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
        • DGHarrison
          Terrence Geoghegan wrote: On another note ... is it really necessary for responders in this group to always leave the entire thread of previous messages in
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Terrence Geoghegan wrote: On another note ... is it really necessary for responders in this group to always leave the entire thread of previous messages in their messages every time?

            I agree with you, Terrence, that the fat should be trimmed from messages, especially for the convenience of the folks who get the digest. I try to do that, but sometimes I forget. You will note that I usually snip all but the main point that I am addressing and format a snippet from the original message as a reference, as in the above, which I formatted to set it apart from my own message. I've noticed that sometimes folks just toss out a reply that leaves you wondering to whom or about what he is actually responding. It takes only a little effort to tweak a reply so that your reference is clear and your message is streamlined. Now all I have to do is figure out how to say more with fewer words (although when talking with a liberal, I find that I have to carefully define all my terms so that the bastard can't conveniently take things out of context and twist the meanings of words to suit his own demented purposes).

            As for the responses to my original plea for assistance, I can only say I am humbled. Thank you for your willingness to share your thoughts and provide suggestions for reading. I will look at the Federalist Papers to get an education on this and other matters. Since I am homeschooling my children (now ages 2+ and nearly 4) I will need to make myself a Constitutional expert. To this end, I will be acquiring a home library with references such as the Federalist Papers and other important historical documents and history books. If anyone would care to recommend a list of "must have" materials, I'd really appreciate it.

            Doug Harrison
            Minnesota
          • westmiller@aol.com
            From: DGHarrison ... Some excellent responses offered. I d put the basic arguments in four aspects: 1. Original intent [if they
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              From: DGHarrison <DGHarrison@...>
              > [preamble] ... defines the people's right to "welfare"
              > from the Federal government.

              Some excellent responses offered. I'd put the basic
              arguments in four aspects:

              1. Original intent [if they respect that], with quotes
              from Madison in Federalist 41:
              http://federalistpapers.com/federalist41.html
              2. Legal construction [if they're lawyers], with the
              note of Justice Story that a broad interpretation runs
              contrary to the enumerated powers that follow:
              http://www.constitution.org/js/js_326.htm
              3. Common sense [if they have any ;o], with the
              distinction between "promoting" conditions that are
              beneficial to all (noting equal treatment under law),
              rather than *providing* for every need (which must
              be infinite).
              4. Moral sense [...] that charitable assistance to
              those who are innocent victims of misfortune cannot
              be coerced, since that destroys any moral value in
              the act.

              I like the last one, for many reasons. The best
              way to disarm opponents is to appeal to their values.
              Government cannot provide *love* for those in need,
              attending to their individual suffering or encouraging
              their efforts; it can only take and give according to
              the cold strictures of law. Nobody in government can
              *care* about individuals.

              Bill
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.