US politics circa 2011

OTOH, government DOES have a role to play in redistributing wealth where appropriate. Sorry, I don't think "redistribute" is a dirty word per sea. If government had a hand - albeit an indirect one - in creating the environment in which the wealth was created, it does get some say in where it ultimately resides. To my way of thinking...it is the "where & when" that's appropriate is what all the fussing & fighting is about! One of the more effective definitions of politics I've seen is, "...the art of deciding who gets what & when." Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Possibly a role of generic "government" from a philosophical standpoint -- but it is NOT a role of OUR government. Unless you are aware of some secret provisions to the Constitution. Of course, maybe that fact that this isn't a role of our government, may explain why we have been so successful.

GMAO....don't make me pull your card!

IF - and that's a mighty BIG if - that's true...good on you for at least being intellectually consistent!! Pity you're being asked to carry water for those that are not. Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Believe me, if DG could think of an example, he would have already posted.

Possibly a role of generic "government" from a philosophical standpoint -- but it is NOT a role of OUR government. Unless you are aware of some secret provisions to the Constitution. Of course, maybe that fact that this isn't a role of our government, may explain why we have been so successful. Originally Posted by pjorourke

[Back comes Michael Irvin]

Come on, man!!! That is a role/goal of ANY government...ours or anyone else's. The ONLY thing that distinguishes OUR government from others is the when, the how, & the how much....

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defen[s]e, 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."

The Keebler elves don't do/pay for all that.

Believe me, if DG could think of an example, he would have already posted. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Take solace in the fact that I'm not going back through every post you've ever made here & elsewhere @ 01:00 in the a.m. Like many a good capitalist, I've got a job to be at in a few hours too!

More than happy to pick this up tomorrow! Good night, my friend!

[Back comes Michael Irvin]

Come on, man!!! That is a role/goal of ANY government...ours or anyone else's. The ONLY thing that distinguishes OUR government from others is the when, the how, & the how much....

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defen[s]e, 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."

The Keebler elves don't do/pay for all that. Originally Posted by Sisyphus

I still don't see "redistribute wealth" in that list.

Believe me, if DG could think of an example, he would have already posted. Originally Posted by pjorourke

The problem is I have some threads in mind but I really need to look at them. Wouldn't post without a smoking gun.

I still don't see "redistribute wealth" in that list. Originally Posted by pjorourke

And yet SS, welfare, etc have all been assumed by the US government at some point and so far the Supreme Court has upheld these types of programs.

And yet SS, welfare, etc have all been assumed by the US government at some point and so far the Supreme Court has upheld these types of programs. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Wait a minute. They told me that Social Security was an inter-generational transfer system that was supported by dedicated taxes. Now you are telling me its just wealth distribution?

I still don't see "redistribute wealth" in that list. Originally Posted by pjorourke

LOL. PJ ever the Austrian Economics libertarian with quite some GOP bias
(I sometimes wonders how you or Capt. 00:00 would deal with a true libertarian gov't, which would of course include civil libertarian, social libertarians and the like)

More serious the roots of libertarian thinking and the foundations of the USA are interesting, because "redistribute wealth" really was not a topic here.

However there were was an extreme focus on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (for all humanity and enforced / enabled by the gov't), which was strongly upheld by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin et al. and can be found e.g. in the Declaration of Independence.

Historically this was a major move forward, since in the anglo-saxon utilitarian thinking until then it was: "life, liberty and property"

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defen[s]e, 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." Originally Posted by Sisyphus

LOL. PJ ever the Austrian Economics libertarian with quite some GOP bias
(I sometimes wonders how you or Capt. 00:00 would deal with a true libertarian gov't, which would of course include civil libertarian, social libertarians and the like)

More serious the roots of libertarian thinking and the foundations of the USA are interesting, because "redistribute wealth" really was not a topic here.

However there were was an extreme focus on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (for all humanity and enforced / enabled by the gov't), which was strongly upheld by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin et al. and can be found e.g. in the Declaration of Independence.

Historically this was a major move forward, since in the anglo-saxon utilitarian thinking until then it was: "life, liberty and property" Originally Posted by ..

Relying on the Preamble or the Declaration of Independence is misplaced. Neither are enforceable at law.

1. PJ ever the Austrian Economics libertarian with quite some GOP bias

2. (I sometimes wonders how you or Capt. 00:00 would deal with a true libertarian gov't, which would of course include civil libertarian, social libertarians and the like) Originally Posted by ..

1. Yup. The GOP is not a natural bias -- I started as a Dem. But those people are now nutz. The Reps are relatively less insane.

2. Bring it! I'd love to see one. But then again, if it was truly libertarian, there wouldn't be much to see. Think zen rock garden minimalist.

Historically this was a major move forward, since in the anglo-saxon utilitarian thinking until then it was: "life, liberty and property" Originally Posted by ..

LOL “Acquisition of property" is synonymous with “happiness” in the U.S.

The Reps are relatively less insane. Originally Posted by pjorourke

+1
. . . even if only marginally.

Relying on the Preamble or the Declaration of Independence is misplaced. Neither are enforceable at law. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

duh! you spotted the most obvious! None of the SS, welfare, or other wealth distributions are really enforceable at law in the US.

From a legal POV all this SS, welfare, etc. came as "new deal" legislation and was over time amendmened. And yes for this there's an entire legal charity cottage industry that works at this level. And yes there's "charity care" too.

BUT if things go against you on a state or even federal level there's zero for you enforceable at law in a higher court!

ps: don't get me wrong i personally strongly believe a modern democratic western country must provide basic but high-quality health care and a guaranteed minimum income for all (libertarians / austrian school economics refer to the latter more commonly as "negative income tax")

pps: Jeffersonian philosophy is important in all kinds of libertarian thought.

1. Yup. The GOP is not a natural bias -- I started as a Dem. But those people are now nutz. The Reps are relatively less insane. Originally Posted by pjorourke

hehe, that's you Or a typical POV for prob. most libertarians here or Cato Inst. libertarians.

Most libertarians that I know don't like the Koch clan, deeply hated Bush (esp. towards the end of his term), voted Obama, since they hoped he'd kill the Patriot Act. Ironically he did many things but the Patriot Act is still here.

2. Bring it! I'd love to see one. But then again, if it was truly libertarian, there wouldn't be much to see. Think zen rock garden minimalist. Originally Posted by pjorourke

hehe, that's debatable

such a gov't would be smaller but highly accountable and transparent. also it's free-market, hence it must be effective against unfair monopolies. So if it works there would be much to see actually.