7 ms·

Even if it supposedly works, it seems so artificial and counter to individual freedom and responsibility that it makes no sense whatsoever given the current US

by pbreit 12y ago

Even if it supposedly works, it seems so artificial and counter to individual freedom and responsibility that it makes no sense whatsoever given the current US constitution and the principles the country was founded upon. (yes, I understand there are a lot of things in place that fall under that umbrella)

Retra 12y ago
What is 'it'? Where is it in the constitution? Why are we supposed to be constrained by founders' principles?
- programmarchy 12y ago
  Why do citizens even have a duty to obey the state? What gives the state any political authority at all?
  - Retra 12y ago
    Are you asking because you don't know, or because you think I don't know?
    - programmarchy 12y ago
      I don't know why the state has political authority, and I don't know if you know. I was asking because I thought it might be related to why we are or are not bound to the founders' principles.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  We are in fact supposed to be constrained by the constitution (at least until we amend it). But, as you asked, where in the constitution is that? Where specifically?
  - Retra 12y ago
    The constitution is supposed to represent _our_ principles, not the founders'. The fact that it does not speaks more to our failure than to their success.
    - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
      Say what? NO. It's not supposed to represent any generation's principles. The constitution is supposed to be an agreed-upon set of rules that is in place until enough people what badly enough to change it that they go through the deliberately-almost-impossible process of amendment. Because if you were just going to have each generation decide what principles that they want to be governed by, why have a constitution in the first place (especially one that's hard to change)? Why not just, you know, let each generation do what it wants? Look, I was initially agreeing with you. If pbreit is going to claim that it makes no sense given the constitution, I want to see section and clause quoted before I believe that it's any such thing. But I also don't think that each generation gets to re-do the constitution in the image of their own principles.
      - Retra 12y ago
        I don't appreciate your tone. You are jumping to conclusions about my opinions on a complicated and controversial matter. >But I also don't think that each generation gets to re-do the constitution in the image of their own principles. I never said that. But every generation does have that power, because all other generations are dead and don't get to make amendments anymore. I don't know what it is about what I've said that makes you think I would support some _other_ means of modifying the constitution. Those who are alive have all the power. I don't see what is so objectionable about that; it's one of the great benefits of not being a corpse.
        AnimalMuppet 12y ago
        Ah, I see. Then, yes, I did misinterpret what you said. My apologies. (In case you can't tell, I'm not a fan of the "it's a living document, it means whatever we want it to mean" school of constitutional interpretation.)
dllthomas 12y ago
"the principles the country was founded upon" Principles held by a group of people including Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, who later wrote another pamphlet entitled Agrarian Justice wherein he proposed a stipend funded by a land value tax. Some of Jefferson's writings also had a mildly Georgist flavor. I don't think the principles are as far opposed as you seem to.
ThomPete 12y ago
Its not counter it just a way to take advantage of the surplus technology has given us. With UBI it will always be financailly beneficial to work more even if you don't do it year round. Its in many ways exactly the kind of systems a society who bases more and more of output technology should be in a possition to implement.
protomyth 12y ago
Ok (although I might have a bit of a disagreement), but what if a state implemented it?
trhway 12y ago
>Even if it supposedly works, it seems so artificial and counter to individual freedom and responsibility that it makes no sense whatsoever given the current US constitution and the principles the country was founded upon. that was pretty much the argument against Medicare 60 years ago, welfare 80 years ago, etc... and i think it would be a great argument against municipal sewer as well...
- pbreit 12y ago
  More good reasons to oppose it here, thx.

by pbreit 12y ago

Retra 12y ago

What is 'it'? Where is it in the constitution? Why are we supposed to be constrained by founders' principles?

programmarchy 12y ago
Why do citizens even have a duty to obey the state? What gives the state any political authority at all?
- Retra 12y ago
  Are you asking because you don't know, or because you think I don't know?
  - programmarchy 12y ago
    I don't know why the state has political authority, and I don't know if you know. I was asking because I thought it might be related to why we are or are not bound to the founders' principles.
AnimalMuppet 12y ago
We are in fact supposed to be constrained by the constitution (at least until we amend it). But, as you asked, where in the constitution is that? Where specifically?
- Retra 12y ago
  The constitution is supposed to represent _our_ principles, not the founders'. The fact that it does not speaks more to our failure than to their success.
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    Say what? NO. It's not supposed to represent any generation's principles. The constitution is supposed to be an agreed-upon set of rules that is in place until enough people what badly enough to change it that they go through the deliberately-almost-impossible process of amendment. Because if you were just going to have each generation decide what principles that they want to be governed by, why have a constitution in the first place (especially one that's hard to change)? Why not just, you know, let each generation do what it wants? Look, I was initially agreeing with you. If pbreit is going to claim that it makes no sense given the constitution, I want to see section and clause quoted before I believe that it's any such thing. But I also don't think that each generation gets to re-do the constitution in the image of their own principles.
    - Retra 12y ago
      I don't appreciate your tone. You are jumping to conclusions about my opinions on a complicated and controversial matter. >But I also don't think that each generation gets to re-do the constitution in the image of their own principles. I never said that. But every generation does have that power, because all other generations are dead and don't get to make amendments anymore. I don't know what it is about what I've said that makes you think I would support some _other_ means of modifying the constitution. Those who are alive have all the power. I don't see what is so objectionable about that; it's one of the great benefits of not being a corpse.
      - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
        Ah, I see. Then, yes, I did misinterpret what you said. My apologies. (In case you can't tell, I'm not a fan of the "it's a living document, it means whatever we want it to mean" school of constitutional interpretation.)

dllthomas 12y ago

"the principles the country was founded upon" Principles held by a group of people including Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, who later wrote another pamphlet entitled Agrarian Justice wherein he proposed a stipend funded by a land value tax. Some of Jefferson's writings also had a mildly Georgist flavor. I don't think the principles are as far opposed as you seem to.

ThomPete 12y ago

Its not counter it just a way to take advantage of the surplus technology has given us. With UBI it will always be financailly beneficial to work more even if you don't do it year round. Its in many ways exactly the kind of systems a society who bases more and more of output technology should be in a possition to implement.

protomyth 12y ago

Ok (although I might have a bit of a disagreement), but what if a state implemented it?

trhway 12y ago

>Even if it supposedly works, it seems so artificial and counter to individual freedom and responsibility that it makes no sense whatsoever given the current US constitution and the principles the country was founded upon. that was pretty much the argument against Medicare 60 years ago, welfare 80 years ago, etc... and i think it would be a great argument against municipal sewer as well...

pbreit 12y ago
More good reasons to oppose it here, thx.