Comments on: A Libertarian Ignorance Of General Welfare Challenges Jared Polis http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/2009/12/22/a-libertarian-ignorance-of-general-welfare-challenges-jared-polis/ A politically independent journal of the campaigns and legislation of the United States Congress. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:46:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jack Crawford http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/2009/12/22/a-libertarian-ignorance-of-general-welfare-challenges-jared-polis/comment-page-1/#comment-38279 Jack Crawford Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:20:04 +0000 http://thatsmycongress.com/?p=2424#comment-38279 The Supreme court also disagreed with the proposition that the draft was involuntary servitude. If you remember, a republican president was in office and got rid of the draft a few years ago, probably before you were born. For all I know neither the Supreme Court nor Charlie Rangel (who wanted to reinstitute the draft in this century) are against slavery. The Supreme court also disagreed with the proposition that the draft was involuntary servitude. If you remember, a republican president was in office and got rid of the draft a few years ago, probably before you were born. For all I know neither the Supreme Court nor Charlie Rangel (who wanted to reinstitute the draft in this century) are against slavery.

]]> By: Congressional Aid http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/2009/12/22/a-libertarian-ignorance-of-general-welfare-challenges-jared-polis/comment-page-1/#comment-38278 Congressional Aid Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:40:04 +0000 http://thatsmycongress.com/?p=2424#comment-38278 Jack, for centuries now the Supreme Court has agreed with the Hamiltonian (as in Alexander Hamilton) understanding of the general welfare clause in the U.S. Constitution. I understand you disagree with the Supreme Court's understanding of the Constitution, but that's not really going to get you far in a practical sense. Jack, for centuries now the Supreme Court has agreed with the Hamiltonian (as in Alexander Hamilton) understanding of the general welfare clause in the U.S. Constitution. I understand you disagree with the Supreme Court’s understanding of the Constitution, but that’s not really going to get you far in a practical sense.

]]> By: Jack Crawford http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/2009/12/22/a-libertarian-ignorance-of-general-welfare-challenges-jared-polis/comment-page-1/#comment-38277 Jack Crawford Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:33:22 +0000 http://thatsmycongress.com/?p=2424#comment-38277 I disagree. The constitution was written to establish a new government with more, but still limited powers than existed under the Articles of Confederation. They limited the government powers specifically because the government of England was trampling over their rights before the revolutionary war was won. To talk about a system that provides welfare for "the people" when you know full well that some people are sacrificed for the benefit of other people is disingenuous at best. To say that Bill Gates would be eligible for food stamps should he ever need them is not very persuasive. I disagree. The constitution was written to establish a new government with more, but still limited powers than existed under the Articles of Confederation. They limited the government powers specifically because the government of England was trampling over their rights before the revolutionary war was won. To talk about a system that provides welfare for “the people” when you know full well that some people are sacrificed for the benefit of other people is disingenuous at best. To say that Bill Gates would be eligible for food stamps should he ever need them is not very persuasive.

]]> By: Congress Watcher http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/2009/12/22/a-libertarian-ignorance-of-general-welfare-challenges-jared-polis/comment-page-1/#comment-38259 Congress Watcher Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:16:06 +0000 http://thatsmycongress.com/?p=2424#comment-38259 Jack, the Constitution was written in order to provide a legal foundation for government powers, not to take powers away from a previously existing government. If you'll review the history of the document, you'll find that it was written to correct the problems that took place under the Articles of Confederation, which were much too weak. You yourself argue that the general welfare clause would count if only we established a "collectivist" society, but that's just what we did, to a reasonable extent, with the general welfare clause. The argument that the government can help the general welfare of the nation without helping the actual American people makes no sense, especially when you consider that the system of government established under the Constitution is supposed to be a government of the people. Jack, the Constitution was written in order to provide a legal foundation for government powers, not to take powers away from a previously existing government. If you’ll review the history of the document, you’ll find that it was written to correct the problems that took place under the Articles of Confederation, which were much too weak.

You yourself argue that the general welfare clause would count if only we established a “collectivist” society, but that’s just what we did, to a reasonable extent, with the general welfare clause. The argument that the government can help the general welfare of the nation without helping the actual American people makes no sense, especially when you consider that the system of government established under the Constitution is supposed to be a government of the people.

]]> By: Jack Crawford http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/2009/12/22/a-libertarian-ignorance-of-general-welfare-challenges-jared-polis/comment-page-1/#comment-38258 Jack Crawford Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:37:53 +0000 http://thatsmycongress.com/?p=2424#comment-38258 It also doesn’t take a genius to understand that the U. S. Constitution was written and adopted to LIMIT the powers of the government. The limits were imposed because people wanted the government to protect their rights, not to take away the money they earned in order to give it to those who hadn’t earned it. Section 8 gives powers to “provide for the … general welfare of the United States” Did you notice that it doesn’t say to provide for the welfare of individuals who are in need? This was argued over two hundred years ago in The Federalist #41. If “helping people” was a primary role of the government, then we would have immediately established some kind of collectivist, statist society instead of an individualist, Capitalist society that we had for so long. It took a long time for people to be corrupted to the point where they do not understand this. But thanks for publicizing Ayn Rand. May her books sell ever more in the future. We need her philosophy, her morality of rational self interest especially, to save us from committing national suicide. It also doesn’t take a genius to understand that the U. S. Constitution was written and adopted to LIMIT the powers of the government. The limits were imposed because people wanted the government to protect their rights, not to take away the money they earned in order to give it to those who hadn’t earned it. Section 8 gives powers to “provide for the … general welfare of the United States” Did you notice that it doesn’t say to provide for the welfare of individuals who are in need? This was argued over two hundred years ago in The Federalist #41. If “helping people” was a primary role of the government, then we would have immediately established some kind of collectivist, statist society instead of an individualist, Capitalist society that we had for so long. It took a long time for people to be corrupted to the point where they do not understand this. But thanks for publicizing Ayn Rand. May her books sell ever more in the future. We need her philosophy, her morality of rational self interest especially, to save us from committing national suicide.

]]>