For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wow. Could you miss the point even further?? It's like you are standing in front of one of those mall maps that says "The Point is Here" and your looking for it in the map of the basement garage. (Don't force me to bring on the "obtuse"!).

I guess you didn't understand my rhetorical question - "You think anyone will be saying 'If only this were Bangladesh'?" - to mean that, no matter how bad it gets in Oakland, no Oaklandian will be dreaming of a better life in Bangladesh. I also assumed you understood that I think the US is governing itself better than any of the listed countries - since that would be consistent with my previous arguments.

Sorry, I'll spell it out for the rhetorically challanged.

In my humble opinion, flawed though it may be in practice, the United States system of government as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (with its federalism and the devolution of power to the vaious states) is far and away the best system for governing large populations. Further, as it is applied today, even with only remnants of the original federalistic system in place, it is - far, far, far and away - the best system currently governing a population of more than 150 million people.



Again, I apologize for the subtle rhetoric. I thought my deep admiration for the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights was apparent by indicating that, even though they were written by rich white men for rich white men, - over 200 hundred years later- a population of 300 million people with vastly disparate interests and with technological advances beyond the imagination of the Founding Fathers could still find unifying, binding principles that are relevant to them today "by finding inspiration in those timeless founding documents."

But then - I forgot I am talkng to someone who thinks capping a deep sea oil well is like changing a pipe in your house. Sure the principles are the same, it's just that the implementation may require a different level of expertise or specialised equipment.

Actually, your prior simplistic approach to the BP situation is an excellent analogy of the fundamental flaw in your political theory. The practical application of the timeless principles set forth in our brilliant founding documents (Got it? I think they are good!) may differ when they are applied to a population of 300 million people that is the most technologically advanced society the world has ever known and who all have a voice in the government as opposed to their application to a pre-industrial population of 5 million where the government was chosen by a minority of the population all of whom had basically similar interests.

So we let this society grind away, the minions working the daily grind, while the politicos throw away our childrens future on utopian tax and spend policies? Or do we try to bring this country back to the federalist principles that allowed us to prosper. Do we ignore the fact that politicians are doing exactly what Tocqueville said would be the ruin of our society - writing checks that our government has no real backing for. Rome in 100AD looked awful good compared to the barbarians but their society quickly devolved as the populace sat and enjoyed their gladiator contests. But hey we can run around and criticize the government so its ok, actually if you yelled you love the KKK in Oakland you would probably be arrested for inciting a riot. The govt has a huge national security beauracracy that will eventually find a way to secure the internal debate even as it claims to be acting in the interest of security. In the end though there is not enough discontent to overcome the drug of public money and no amount of political discussion is going to overcome that.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So we let this society grind away, the minions working the daily grind, while the politicos throw away our childrens future on utopian tax and spend policies? Or do we try to bring this country back to the federalist principles that allowed us to prosper. Do we ignore the fact that politicians are doing exactly what Tocqueville said would be the ruin of our society - writing checks that our government has no real backing for.

Did I say we let it grind away? The only way we can change it is by continuing to work. The concept of smaller govt., fewer taxes is all good - you got any ideas on how to make it work? I mean real, practical means?

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Rome in 100AD looked awful good compared to the barbarians but their society quickly devolved as the populace sat and enjoyed their gladiator contests. But hey we can run around and criticize the government so its ok, actually if you yelled you love the KKK in Oakland you would probably be arrested for inciting a riot.

We ain't Rome, Rome wasn't a democracy and at its height the Roman Empire was approximately 1/10 of our population. As you said in one of your earlier posts, the need is not yet dire and we can change if we can find the political will. But I agree, I am not sure we will.

My only point with Oakland was a response to TTE assertion that our govt. is "shitty". To me, it's all a matter of perspective. Is it bad compared to the ideal? yup. Is it better than any of the alternatives currently out there? yup. Should we be satisfied with it? Nope. But you "Govt. is innately evil" types just don't get that.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The govt has a huge national security beauracracy that will eventually find a way to secure the internal debate even as it claims to be acting in the interest of security. In the end though there is not enough discontent to overcome the drug of public money and no amount of political discussion is going to overcome that.

Feeling a little paranoid? You may be right. I doubt it. In America, I suspect that the freedom of speech is greater than it has ever been.

Look, bottom line, as 12th said - I agree with the cut spending live w/in our means objective. As you say, the problem is finding the political wil to cut something. Attacking govt. for govt. sake, however, is simply wrong headed. Despite what the rhetoric from the Tea Party, govt. is not innately "bad" it simply is and it is what we let it be.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Did I say we let it grind away? The only way we can change it is by continuing to work. The concept of smaller govt., fewer taxes is all good - you got any ideas on how to make it work? I mean real, practical means?

I know a lot of ideas have been thrown out, and discussed. Straightening out the tax code, along the lines of Slinging Sammy's comments. A moratorium for 3 years on new defense spending, a reduction in the Army recruiting by 3-5% per year, and a corresponding redefinition of Army goals, including reducing overseas commitments. A freeze, on social security/health care benefits, again for the next 3 years. All these simply take political will - therefore they won't happen. Further(and more pie in the sky), 12 year term limits for all of congress, - if a president can be up to snuff on all the intricacies and serve only 8 years, I believe new congressmen can manage as well. Re-affirm Article 10 of the bill of rights, by removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club to force States to implement "the good of all" type legislation.
Finally, some serious Constitutional changes - take Senators out of the public vote, and back to being appointed by the individual States. If a state chooses to hold elections fine, but the Senate was designed to be a check on pure democracy tendencies.

We ain't Rome, Rome wasn't a democracy and at its height the Roman Empire was approximately 1/10 of our population. As you said in one of your earlier posts, the need is not yet dire and we can change if we can find the political will. But I agree, I am not sure we will.

A brief, but good read on the Roman Republic from Wikipedia:
Roman Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Roman Republic was the phase of the ancient Roman civilization characterised by a republican form of government. It began with the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, c. 509 BC, and lasted 482 years until its subversion, through a series of civil wars, into the Principate form of government and the Imperial period.

The Roman Republic was governed by a complex constitution, which centred on the principles of a separation of powers and checks and balances. The evolution of the constitution was heavily influenced by the struggle between the aristocracy (the patricians), and other Romans who were not from famous families, the plebeians. Early in its history, the republic was controlled by an aristocracy of individuals who could trace their ancestry back to the early history of the kingdom. Over time, the laws that allowed these individuals to dominate the government were repealed, and the result was the emergence of a new aristocracy which depended on the structure of society, rather than the law, to maintain its dominance.

I could easily change a few terms and make this fit for the US governmental structure. This form existed for 482 years, we are at almost half that. But, as you correctly pointed out, this form of government wasn't even managing 1/10 of the population, and I tend to believe the increased scale could possibly increase the speed of the decline to an imperial form of government. I bolded the one line because that strikes me as the phase we are entering, where the structure of society (healthcare, social engineering, and social security) are beginning to override legal principles of sound government.

So, no we are not Rome, but we could learn ALOT from their historic example.

My only point with Oakland was a response to TTE assertion that our govt. is "shitty". To me, it's all a matter of perspective. Is it bad compared to the ideal? yup. Is it better than any of the alternatives currently out there? yup. Should we be satisfied with it? Nope. But you "Govt. is innately evil" types just don't get that.

Well fair enough, I just don't get that we should accept a poor gov't just because it is what we have. Yes it is better than the worst governments out there, truthfully, so was the English Monarchy when the founding fathers revolted against it. And more important, and what you "gov't is innately neutral" types don't get, is that there is an inertia within gov't which seeks to preserve its position within society and increase its own power. The founding fathers to some degree understood that, George Washington specifically understood that a permanent president was bad for the country. So is a Senate where a 94 year old can hold power and sway for 30+ years, and develop the necessary payouts to his/her constituents to ensure his/her continued re-election. NO ONE argues that gov't is not necessary, if anarchy were to arise, a central(and most likely bad) power would certainly and quickly fill that void. But likewise, gov't is not neutral. It is a power based position, and by definition, every person involved in it, wants the power to control what others do. Thus it should be limited, and restrained. Right now, we don't have that because the two parties have developed a natural block against anything that threatens their status quo.

Feeling a little paranoid? You may be right. I doubt it. In America, I suspect that the freedom of speech is greater than it has ever been.

I have and always will be paranoid , but as they say, just because I am paranoid doesn't mean someone's not looking at me.
I agree that at this moment in time freedom of speech is well guarded, but it also is something that can disappear fairly quickly if a gov't that has big guns decides it doesn't like it.

Look, bottom line, as 12th said - I agree with the cut spending live w/in our means objective. As you say, the problem is finding the political will to cut something. Attacking govt. for govt. sake, however, is simply wrong headed. Despite what the rhetoric from the Tea Party, govt. is not innately "bad" it simply is and it is what we let it be.

Well who is it that does not have the political will to cut "something"? I would argue it is the established politicians and government bureaucracy that so firmly believes in it's own pre-eminence that it thinks that States and people could not somehow manage without the Federal government dictating. Gov't is innately power motivated. Can power be used for good? obviously, but human history has shown that it just as often, or more often, is not.

[Trample the Elderly]

It really doesn't matter. Our Congress is ceremonial for the most part. The gang bankster bosses write the legislature and the Congressmen and Senators just add pork to get relected. Then they get in front of the cameras and tell the public they're sticking it to the insurance industry, the banking industry, to Wall Street, etc. The sad thing is that many people can't see through it. "Why those Dems are for the little guy. Those greedy Republicans are in the pockets of big business". Or Vice Versa "Why those Democrats are a bunch of Socialist pigs. The Republicans are pro-family, pro-gun, and for fiscal responsibility!" I say it's BS. Meanwhile our manufacturing got shipped to China.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

It really doesn't matter. Our Congress is ceremonial for the most part. The gang bankster bosses write the legislature and the Congressmen and Senators just add pork to get relected. Then they get in front of the cameras and tell the public they're sticking it to the insurance industry, the banking industry, to Wall Street, etc. The sad thing is that many people can't see through it. "Why those Dems are for the little guy. Those greedy Republicans are in the pockets of big business". Or Vice Versa "Why those Democrats are a bunch of Socialist pigs. The Republicans are pro-family, pro-gun, and for fiscal responsibility!" I say it's BS. Meanwhile our manufacturing got shipped to China.

1.We gotta get some federal guidlines for some term f*ing limits for both the house and the senate. 2.And it would be nice if some way to keep special interest/lobbist/corporations moneys out of and away from capitol hill. Its a damn crying shame our reps' interest and concerns can be bought and sold...the founding fathers rolling in their graves to see how poor of political system this has become.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I know a lot of ideas have been thrown out, and discussed. Straightening out the tax code, along the lines of Slinging Sammy's comments. A moratorium for 3 years on new defense spending, a reduction in the Army recruiting by 3-5% per year, and a corresponding redefinition of Army goals, including reducing overseas commitments. A freeze, on social security/health care benefits, again for the next 3 years. All these simply take political will - therefore they won't happen. Further(and more pie in the sky), 12 year term limits for all of congress, - if a president can be up to snuff on all the intricacies and serve only 8 years, I believe new congressmen can manage as well. Re-affirm Article 10 of the bill of rights, by removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club to force States to implement "the good of all" type legislation.
Finally, some serious Constitutional changes - take Senators out of the public vote, and back to being appointed by the individual States. If a state chooses to hold elections fine, but the Senate was designed to be a check on pure democracy tendencies.

Other than the Senatorial appointment, term limits and "removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club ", I agree with all of these. Further, if the economc policy can be sold simply as a "freeze", rather than a "cut", it might be easier to generate the political will.

I am on the fence about the term limits & return to appointments, I just see these as increasing cronyism & corruption and not necessarily an improvement to the current system.

What do you mean "removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club"?

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

A brief, but good read on the Roman Republic from Wikipedia:
Roman Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could easily change a few terms and make this fit for the US governmental structure. This form existed for 482 years, we are at almost half that. But, as you correctly pointed out, this form of government wasn't even managing 1/10 of the population, and I tend to believe the increased scale could possibly increase the speed of the decline to an imperial form of government. I bolded the one line because that strikes me as the phase we are entering, where the structure of society (healthcare, social engineering, and social security) are beginning to override legal principles of sound government.

So, no we are not Rome, but we could learn ALOT from their historic example..

I don't disagree with much of this - the concept that structure replaced the rule of law is a common theme among Roman historians (one wrote that, near the end of the empire, the majority of Roman law was one group of lawyers trying to close tax loopholes and another group trying to find new ones).

The main difference,however, is that, unlike us, Roman citizens were granted rights by the Roman Republic i.e. their liberty was given to them by the govt. and could be taken away by the same. Similar to the British Constitution, the Roman Republic's checks and balances derived from traditional governing bodies which, in turn, granted "rights" to those participating in them. In the US, we assert that the liberties were always ours but we will give some up to the govt. "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

I believe this institutionalized difference is the fundamental difference between the US Constitution and all prior govts. dealing with massive, disparate populations.

The new Roman Aristocracy rose b/c they were given their "rights" by the govt. and were thus dependent upon it to retain those "rights". On the other hand, even now, we recognize that it is not the US or State governments that gave us our rights. Rather, even without a governmental "structure of society" we, and every living person on this earth, are entitled to the right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That simply was not true of the Romans or any other government before us.

So while we may learn from the Romans and their slow descent into Imperium, we need to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between the two governments.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well fair enough, I just don't get that we should accept a poor gov't just because it is what we have. Yes it is better than the worst governments out there, truthfully, so was the English Monarchy when the founding fathers revolted against it.

1. I absolutely agree that poor govt. is unacceptable and that a population should at all times demand, and those elected or appointed to public service, should provide that service effectively, efficiently and in a responsive manner. Even the best government in the world can be improved, but it requires a population willing to do so.

2. Currently, Foreign Policy Magazine ranks "failed states" considering a multitude of factors. We are ranked 159 out of 177 (i.e. we have one of the most stable govts. out there) and all but a couple of those govts. "better" than the US are smaller western European countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland make up the "best" five). 2010 Failed States Index - Interactive Map and Rankings | Foreign Policy

We should always strive for better government, but, rather blame govt. for all our ills, it is important to recognize just what our stable, central govt. has enabled us to accomplish. A failure to recognize where our govt. is working increases the likelihood of f'ing things up worse as we damn govt. to hell and rip it apart.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

[W]hat you "gov't is innately neutral" types don't get, is that there is an inertia within gov't which seeks to preserve its position within society and increase its own power. The founding fathers to some degree understood that, George Washington specifically understood that a permanent president was bad for the country. So is a Senate where a 94 year old can hold power and sway for 30+ years, and develop the necessary payouts to his/her constituents to ensure his/her continued re-election. NO ONE argues that gov't is not necessary, if anarchy were to arise, a central(and most likely bad) power would certainly and quickly fill that void. But likewise, gov't is not neutral. It is a power based position, and by definition, every person involved in it, wants the power to control what others do. Thus it should be limited, and restrained. Right now, we don't have that because the two parties have developed a natural block against anything that threatens their status quo.

I do not believe govt. is innately "neutral". It can, and should be neutral, but that is dependant on the governed. In dictatorships or oligarchies, the government is good or bad dependent on the dictator or oligarchy (the Nazis under Hitler were baaaad government). In a democracy, the govt. is reflective of its electorate. Today's electorate, certainly on a federal level is apathetic, so we have apathetic, sloppy governance (I think this is due, in part, to the sheer numbers involved). This, in turn, allows for things like money, race, and other undemocratic factors to undermine fair, efficient governance.

Everyone in govt. wants power? Maybe. Certainly, the government needs "the power to control what others do" to govern or it is not a government. The question is what do those who hold power want to do with that power? An effective, knowledgeable electorate insures that those in power are using the public power as it was intended - for the public good. Yes, the power "the power to control what others do" should be limited and, even today, the Bill of Rights provides those protections.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

... Well who is it that does not have the political will to cut "something"? I would argue it is the established politicians and government bureaucracy that so firmly believes in it's own pre-eminence that it thinks that States and people could not somehow manage without the Federal government dictating. Gov't is innately power motivated. Can power be used for good? obviously, but human history has shown that it just as often, or more often, is not.

First, the "government bureacracy" is pre-eminient. Can't have a central government "without the Federal government dictating." The bureaucracy (the unelected administrators of govt. power) know where their "power" comes from - the elected officials who appointed them - and will respond to pressure from them. These "established politicians" were allowed to become "established" by an apathetic electorate. And why is our electorate apathetic you may ask? Well, let me rant -

Mustering the political will to cut "something" means finding cuts upon which the majority of us can agree. I don't care how persuasive you are, convincing a majority of 300 million people to agree on the specifics of anything is, in my opinion, beyond a Herculean task. It requires all 300 million of us (well, 150,000,001 of us) to recognize that we will probably have to do some things we don't like in order to accomplish something we do like. Faced with this massive task of finding some common ground. TTE and his ilk believe that they have all the answers and that no answers can be found from beyond their spectrum. JTF and his ilk believe the same. From these two groups of idealogues there is no willingness or tolerance to even consider the other's positions in order to accomplish finding a consensus and effect some change.

TTE & JTF each claim that we, in the center, are having the wool pulled over our eyes - neither sees that they, and their zealotry, are the problem. By accepting nothing less than total victory, they set themselves up for exploitation and use by the very forces they decry. Set the ends against each other so the middle can accomplish nothing - And it's easy too, feed'em a little conspiracy theory and they eat it up. Rather than recognizing they can't have it all their way, they destroy any chance of consensus by claiming they alone have the secret to utopia.

Their zealotry increases voter apathy (ehh, why should I bother, nobody can agree on anything), which, in turn, leads to sloppy governance. Sloppy governance allows undemocratic forces to achieve illegal and unconstitutional ends which increases the apathy of the governed (well, except for the zealots). Rather than recognize the general apathy as a symptom of their own actions, the zealots claim it as proof of their cause.

You want an engaged govt. where "the minions" don't just toil? Then find a way to convince the zealots to acquiesce to considering principles that don't necessarily agree with their world view and may even be antithetical to it. Right now, the zealots are standing in the way of real solutions and they can't even see it. Fools who would blindly lead their country to Gotterdammerung rather than consider that they may not have a monopoly on the truth.

[Trample the Elderly]

You sure do take up a lot of space to show you're a jackass. When that psychotic muslim started shooting our soldiers in Texas, weren't you the one who first thought how bad it would be for muslim's image? You didn't even give a shit about your own countrymen.

Yes I'm the problem. I'm the one: conducting the war on drugs, bombing people in Iraq who never did anything to me, stealing the tax payer's money and giving it to private banks, flooding the gulf with oil, sending all our manufacturing jobs to China. Yes, I did all of that because I'm a one man gang wreaking crew of destruction like Mr.T on crack. Yes you found me out. It was me and not the incompetent and greed of the Federal government. Also, I was the one who sent in troops to Yugoslavia. I also invented crack cocaine back in 1984 when I ran out of free base. Global warming occurs because I drive a Ford Van and run may air conditioner on high.

You're solution is to have a more effective government. Mine is to have less power in the hands of the eff ups that caused these problems or allowed them to fester in the first place. More government isn't the solution, because if it was we'd not have the problems in the first place.

Oh, I'm a crack pot conspiracy theorist because I know the Federal Reserve isn't a part of the government and doesn't answer to it. You got me! I guess I'll have to retire my tin foil hat and stop learning how to do things. Government will do it all for me.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

You sure do take up a lot of space to show you're a jackass. When that psychotic muslim started shooting our soldiers in Texas, weren't you the one who first thought how bad it would be for muslim's image? You didn't even give a shit about your own countrymen.

Bull. I challenge you to find any post of mine that remotely supports this assertion. My father proudly served in Vietnam and my brother also served. I have only the utmost respect for anyone who dons a uniform of our armed forces.

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Yes I'm the problem. I'm the one: conducting the war on drugs, bombing people in Iraq who never did anything to me, stealing the tax payer's money and giving it to private banks, flooding the gulf with oil, sending all our manufacturing jobs to China. Yes, I did all of that because I'm a one man gang wreaking crew of destruction like Mr.T on crack. Yes you found me out. It was me and not the incompetent and greed of the Federal government. Also, I was the one who sent in troops to Yugoslavia. I also invented crack cocaine back in 1984 when I ran out of free base. Global warming occurs because I drive a Ford Van and run may air conditioner on high.

Wait for it.....

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

You're solution is to have a more effective government. Mine is to have less power in the hands of the eff ups that caused these problems or allowed them to fester in the first place. More government isn't the solution, because if it was we'd not have the problems in the first place.

BAM!! And there it is - the JTF moment. I have never asserted that more government is the solution - in fact, I have asserted just the opposite. I also assert, however, that govt. can accomplish good things, and provide a unity for the 300 million of us that share this country. You, however, appear to reject that contention and would reject, out of hand, any solution that would require increased authority to the central govt. Not exactly conducive for developing consensus.

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Oh, I'm a crack pot conspiracy theorist because I know the Federal Reserve isn't a part of the government and doesn't answer to it. You got me! I guess I'll have to retire my tin foil hat and stop learning how to do things. Government will do it all for me.

Your right, we should increase the central government's authority so that the Federal Reserve is responsive to the electorate... oh wait, can't do that b/c that will just give more power to people who eff' things up. ... okay ... We eliminate the Federal Reserve and allow private banks to do business in an unregulated market.... oh wait, can't do that b/c then those same banks will have an even freer reign to launder drug money.... we better pass some laws to regulate them.. wait....

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...
What do you mean "removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club"?

Simply this,
ending, or severely limiting, the restrictions the federal government can use to tie up money.

The prime example that comes to my mind is federal highway funds. Let's say, for example that Md has 1% of the interstate and federal road systems. Then when budgeting, Md should get 1% of the federal highway funds, regardless of whether the people of Md have instituted a Click it or Ticket campaign, or what the speed limits the people of Md have allowed on their roadways, or what insurance dictates Md has instituted, or whatever other things the Federal dictates that we should do.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...

I don't disagree with much of this - the concept that structure replaced the rule of law is a common theme among Roman historians (one wrote that, near the end of the empire, the majority of Roman law was one group of lawyers trying to close tax loopholes and another group trying to find new ones).

The main difference,however, is that, unlike us, Roman citizens were granted rights by the Roman Republic i.e. their liberty was given to them by the govt. and could be taken away by the same. Similar to the British Constitution, the Roman Republic's checks and balances derived from traditional governing bodies which, in turn, granted "rights" to those participating in them. In the US, we assert that the liberties were always ours but we will give some up to the govt. "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

I believe this institutionalized difference is the fundamental difference between the US Constitution and all prior govts. dealing with massive, disparate populations.

The new Roman Aristocracy rose b/c they were given their "rights" by the govt. and were thus dependent upon it to retain those "rights". On the other hand, even now, we recognize that it is not the US or State governments that gave us our rights. Rather, even without a governmental "structure of society" we, and every living person on this earth, are entitled to the right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That simply was not true of the Romans or any other government before us.

So while we may learn from the Romans and their slow descent into Imperium, we need to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between the two governments.

I understand the difference you are pointing out. Yet, I feel like many of the New Deal/Social Support programs were designed specifically to create this same dependency on Government that created the New Roman Aristocracy. We call it the welfare state, but basically this new social structure is founded not on inalienable rights, but on the government's good graces and as it expands it creates more and more users who feel this sense of entitlement, derived not from God, a creator, or some inalienable right, but solely from the government which feeds them.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I understand the difference you are pointing out. Yet, I feel like many of the New Deal/Social Support programs were designed specifically to create this same dependency on Government that created the New Roman Aristocracy. We call it the welfare state, but basically this new social structure is founded not on inalienable rights, but on the government's good graces and as it expands it creates more and more users who feel this sense of entitlement, derived not from God, a creator, or some inalienable right, but solely from the government which feeds them.

Well, both the Civil War and the New Deal were serious blows to federalism and the traditional power structure. Of course, that was in part b/c federalism and the traditional power structure allowed for institutionalized slavery and disregard for "the General Welfare".

Unlike the inalienable rights, however, "entitlements" can (not that they will) be rolled back. AND - There is a defense to the claim that anyone is really entitled to them b/c the Bill of Rights specifically says you have certain rights and these payments aren't listed. Unlike Rome (or more recently Britain), these entitlements are not confused as constitutional rights. They are instead privileges granted by the govt.

Not saying this is going to happen anytime soon, but, at some point, I think the reality sets in for the vast majority of people funding the "entitlements" to say - "We have no more money to feed the government that feeds you." The response but "We are entitled" does not suffer from the flaw that created the Roman structure in that priviledges are understood to be revocable - rights are not.

You said it well earlier - the drug of government money is very addictive for society. Some addicts recover, some do not. I honestly don't know which we will be. We have a government structure in place that provides us, I believe, a better chance at recovery than the Romans - but I would absolutely agree that it is not a given.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, both the Civil War and the New Deal were serious blows to federalism and the traditional power structure. Of course, that was in part b/c federalism and the traditional power structure allowed for institutionalized slavery and disregard for "the General Welfare".

Unlike the inalienable rights, however, "entitlements" can (not that they will) be rolled back. AND - There is a defense to the claim that anyone is really entitled to them b/c the Bill of Rights specifically says you have certain rights and these payments aren't listed. Unlike Rome (or more recently Britain), these entitlements are not confused as constitutional rights. They are instead privileges granted by the govt.

Not saying this is going to happen anytime soon, but, at some point, I think the reality sets in for the vast majority of people funding the "entitlements" to say - "We have no more money to feed the government that feeds you." The response but "We are entitled" does not suffer from the flaw that created the Roman structure in that priviledges are understood to be revocable - rights are not.

You said it well earlier - the drug of government money is very addictive for society. Some addicts recover, some do not. I honestly don't know which we will be. We have a government structure in place that provides us, I believe, a better chance at recovery than the Romans - but I would absolutely agree that it is not a given.

Well said.