A question for liberals: why do you focus on money and not production? (union, paychecks)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was necessary. History proves that post revolution times are highly precarious.
Our founding fathers had the wisdom to codify an effective constitution and install themselves as the political power for a good while. But what would happen when they were gone? They also knew that a just government had no chance of lasting unless it was subject to an informed and free public.
The Major is mostly right. The FF's did some great job, but far from ideal. In that 'common men' really meant common white males.
Yup, that worked really well for the haves in France circa 1789. Or for the haves in Russia in 1917. Or for the haves in Cuba in 1959.
Militaristically speaking, firearms are simply a force-multiplier, but when the have-nots population exceeds that multiplier and the have-nots feel that they have nothing else to lose, then it's just a matter of how many the have's will kill before the have-nots bring them down.
Any time things get so bad the population is forced to insurrection, the government has already failed. A century ago, wealthy people hired private security to massacre workers. As often as not, the local sheriff was on the side of the workers. Chairman Mao found that the local guard was not effective in suppressing insurrection. In the case of the USA, they would have to mobilize the Alabama National Guard to suppress an insurrection in New York.
The Major is mostly right. The FF's did some great job, but far from ideal. In that 'common men' really meant common white males.
Not at all. They needed to pass something that had a chance of garnering a consensus, without unduly threatening the domestic power structure that existed. Abolishing slavery would have been impossible, but in the declaration of independence they planted the seed that would lead to that as well as women's rights. The same goes for freedom of religion, contrary to many who try to claim that they only meant various Christian denominations.
I think most of these guys were quite wise and liberal in their view. They knew full well what was possible and not possible at the time, and where it would hopefully lead.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Not at all. They needed to pass something that had a chance of garnering a consensus, without unduly threatening the domestic power structure that existed. Abolishing slavery would have been impossible, but in the declaration of independence they planted the seed that would lead to that as well as women's rights. The same goes for freedom of religion, contrary to many who try to claim that they only meant various Christian denominations.
I think most of these guys were quite wise and liberal in their view. They knew full well what was possible and not possible at the time, and where it would hopefully lead.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Realistic is not always ideal. Many basic tenets needed adjustment since those days. All men were not effectively deemed equal, and also women from the get go.
You simply failed to understand his point. All government is redistributive. You need to get used to that.
I'm well aware of the fact that government has become redistributive. My issue is with the fact that redistribution is inherently unfair, both economically and in terms of the balance of power.
If the system is responsible for economic inequality, then the solution is to have less "system," not more.
Poverty as defined by government is based only on annual cash income. Since it has nothing to do with spending, how is poverty caused by poor financial decisions?
Poverty as defined by government is based only on annual cash income.
By that definition, someone with substantial assets but little income would be considered poor. An honest evaluation of whether or not one is poor must include not only income, but also financial obligations and assets.
Poverty is defined as "the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor." Poverty | Define Poverty at Dictionary.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Since it has nothing to do with spending, how is poverty caused by poor financial decisions?
What other condition would you call that of someone who chooses to spend more than they earn?
By that definition, someone with substantial assets but little income would be considered poor. An honest evaluation of whether or not one is poor must include not only income, but also financial obligations and assets.
Poverty is defined as "the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor." Poverty | Define Poverty at Dictionary.com
What other condition would you call that of someone who chooses to spend more than they earn?
Yes and yes. The government definition of poverty is pretty silly, isn't it?
And is it really a surprise that poverty remains, as defined by government?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
