How Big Do Liberals Want Government to Be?

Post Reply New Topic

If their angry its because of the bad economy. And because of economic crisis.

still wont fix internal issues,

also what vigilans said actually does have a ring of truth, the us is one of the countries where the largest percentage of people sits in prison or have been there before.

not that i think it is implicitly because of the buisness side but it sure doesnt help.

Most people in prison of Asian Black and Mexian our country stereotypes them. They get a tougher sentence then whites. Also they are the majyority in prison. It's also extremely hard to get a job when your a ex-con.

But you already knew that.

it should be big enough to keep corporations small enough to drown in the bathtub if need be.

It should be big enough that if I look out my window I see something that makes me think "Government". But small enough that nothing makes me think "Government" in my room.

Big enough to intervene legally to ensure that women are entitled to high salaries and enact legislation to satisfy outraged feminists who whine about the "wage gap".

the U.S. existed and even prospered until the Great Depression without being a Welfare State.

The main victims were black folks who suffered under slavery until the end of the Civil War and continued to suffer from racial discrimination even after we became a Welfare State.

If anything, the liberal Welfare State has exacerbated the racism displayed toward black folk. Who is the evil presence in the famous Welfare Queen canard?

Americans conquered a continent without a welfare state.

ruveyn

ruveyn -- was the moving of Indians from the southeast to Oklahoma not a "welfare state" type action.? I'm sure there are other such actions in our past that show government intervention was present long before the Great Depression.

True. But it was not a pinko stinko Left Wing Commie Loving Welfare State.

ruveyn

The state that does not guarantee its citizens access to a living income is the state that is going to have to have a significantly larger police and court system to deal with the crime that will result.

The link between poverty and crime is well established. And every barrier to access that a state puts in place is another driver for increased crime.

It's not a case of having big government, or small government. It's a case of having a government that has the means to accomplish the goals that it is required to do. That means periodically reviewing programs and asking the questions: Is this a program that needs to be done? Is this a program that is unique to government? Is this a program that could be delivered in a better way?

Saying military, police and courts and nothing else is as ludicrous as it is elegant. There are clearly a whole host of other things that benefit all of us, but that it is in no-one's direct commercial interest to provide: universal access to education; universal access to medically necessary care; transportation infrastructure. And though we might believe that the only beneficiaries of income assistance are those who collect, the reality is that we all benefit when people do not need to steal in order to feed their families.

It doesn't matter to whether the theft is carried out by gov't agency or by the common street thug; it is still theft. At least I can shoot back at the criminal who doesn't hide behind legislation.

Calling it theft does not make it so.

"Theft" is a legal term that has a very clear definition. If you must resort to mangling language in order to create your rhetoric, it simply demonstrates how bare your policy cupboard is.

You don't like paying taxes--fair enough. None of us do--but most of us do so willingly, because we believe ourselves to be better off, as a society, for the things that government does. But calling taxes theft is dishonest, is disingenuous--and perhaps most important--is bereft of any substantive merit.

If taxation is theft, then is imprisonment kidnapping?

From wiki:



Legal definition:



Am I really the one 'mangling' the language here, or are you just in denial of the fact that it meets the definition?

If it is done by a private party without the sanction of law.

ruveyn

Yes, yes you are.

First--"the generic term fo all crimes," in order to be properly described as theft, the action must, by definition, be criminal. In Common Law jurisdictions there are only two means whereby a crime can be created: by Common Law (a court recognizing that an action is inherently criminal) or by statute. Even if taxation were theft at common law, it is trite law that when statute and common law are in conflict, statute prevails. So when the legislature authorizes government to collect money from citizens, that authorization legitimates the action.

Second--"in which a person intentionally and fraudulently." Fraud has a very specific definition in equity: a person must make a statement that the person knows or ought properly to know is false; the statement is relied upon by another party; and the other party suffers a loss as a result of the reliance." Indeed your definition is completely incorrect, for a person who takes your wallet and removes the money from it commits no fraud at all.

The correct definition of theft, at Common Law is, "the conversion of personal property to one's own use without colour of right."

And the last time I read the United States' constitution, Congress was provided with full and ample authority to levy taxes. Government has colour of right, and theft is not made out.

quod erat demonstrandum.