Legislating Morality

[Leto2]

So Garfield1966 and I had a brief discussion on another post that got me thinking about "legislating morality". In fact, it got me thinking about the whole purpose of government. Then, by chance, I had a conversation with a Libertarian talk show host on Saturday night (I talked to him at a Halloween party). That also got me thinking and reading.

Here are a couple things that I've found:

1. The proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act.

For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. (John Locke, Two Treatises on Civil Governemtn, II, 135)

Think about this--if I don't have the right to go and force my neighbor to give money to the poor, then the government can't do so (through welfare, free health care, etc.). It is an individual's responsibility to determine whether he will give charity or not. If the govt has more powers than the people, then we have created a monster more powerful than the master.


2. Humans have God-given rights.

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. (Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence)

It's important to remember that our rights are Divinely given, and are not given to us from the government. If they were given to us from the government, the govt could take them away.
Also, I think that separation of church and state means that the govt should not support one single religion, but if the govt takes God out of everything (which is the current trend), then we seemingly no longer get our rights from God but from the govt--it takes away the foundation.


3. Given the above, THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT US AGAINST LOSS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY, both against foreign despots and domestic criminals.

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, “a liberty for every man to do what he lists.â€￾ For who culd be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions possessions, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which hi is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own. (John Locke, Two Treatises on Civil Government, II, 135)

So given this framework, I can't justify a minimum wage (Arizona is about to raise it), welfare, grants to scientists, and a bunch of other garbage our govt meddles with. And others can't justify "legislating morality".

However, a clearer definition of "legislating morality" is needed. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of laws that are only legislating morality.

For example--
* Gay marriage seems to be about morals. But what would happen if there were only gay marriages? Within one generation we wouldn't exist. Perhaps gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because it protects LIFE.
* Smoking marijuana seems to be about morals. But what about parents who smoke around their kids? The govt should protect the kids' lives.
ETC.

I'd like to hear others' thoughts on what I've outlined above. I didn't come up with all of this stuff, but I think I believe it. Reading this and talking to the libertarian have certainly given my thoughts on the role of the government a good shaking.

 

[MrAeroMan]

I agree with what you've put up here and you put it out there very well. I would like to comment on some of your points.
I think most people who have studied this period in time such as when this country was founded it was founded on Christian principles. I believe the founders were devout in their Christian beliefs but at the same time they knew that the country had to be based on a solid foundation that didn't rest solely on religion hence the "Creator" statement. Now with that said I feel they wanted a country where each person was free to practice whatever religion they wanted and that has worked well for this country right up to this day. The problem that has arisen is some have sought to take the separation of church and state to the extreme. I see nothing wrong with a public display of Jesus in a manger nor do I see anything wrong with a Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or any other religion to have a public display. The problem arises is when one religion or faction decides the Christian display offends them and therefore that is the basis for it to be taken down. That is wrong and not the principles this country was built on.

 

[KCFlyer]

Well, when JFK was running for president, a lot of folks were worried that the Pope would be ruling the USA. Many of those same people who worried about that certainly wanted to see a separation of church and state then are concerned that we have taken it too far now.

What are we legislating these days? "Gay marriage", or the more accurate term "civil unions" have been pretty hot issues on the ballots of many states. We are passing laws to "protect the sanctity of marriage"....for everything but heterosexual marriages - there you can cite "irreconcilable differences" and off you go. And, considering the divorce rate is about 50% - it would seem that the sanctity of marriage was damaged long before gay people wanted to tie the knot. In my state, they were concerned that if Bob "married" Bill, then it wouldn't be long before Bob was marrying his horse or dog. And the odd thing is...nowhere on the ballot was it saying that any church had to recognize a gay couple. Just that the state would give a gay partner the exact same rights as a heterosexual couple when it comes to property, insurance, health care, and any other civil matter.

But because some found it to be "immoral", we must put laws on the books to ban it. What is wrong with leaving it up to God? If they die and the other side was right....God deplored homosexuals...they'll pay. If, on the other hand, we find that God really IS all forgiving, then they'll go to heaven. Same thing with abortion - if God finds it's wrong, it's MY problem - not yours and not society's.

 

[Garfield1966]

I agree with 1 and 2. I strongly disagree with 3 and I disagree with your examples.

I am agnostic so the idea of ‘divine rights’ is alien to me. The concept of ‘rights’ are human in nature. By that I mean that we have given our selves our rights. We can change them at will. Government is given its power by the people. If we cede our rights to government that is our fault.

I do not believe that if the founding fathers intended for the government to support any type of religion. Regardless of that, since I pay taxs, I have no interest in my tax dollars going to fund any type of religious display. Like I mentioned in a different thread, if someone wants to put up a christmass tree on public property, then it is also my right to put a wica display, pagan display, satanic display right beside it. Do we really need/want that on government property? I would argue no. If you want to have a display of any type, put it on your private property or have your religious institution host it. It is private property and you may do as you choose.

As far as your examples are concerned, There may be some out there that cross both lines but I do not believe the two you choose are them.

-gay marriage.
The legislation is not about banning heterosexual marriages. The ban is against homosexuals. Even if it were to ban hetero marriages there would be a minimal effect if any on the birth rate. People have babies because they have sex, not because they are married. Take a look at the unwed mother stats in this country if you don’t believe me. I was having sex with my wife long before we made our union. Had we decided to forgo the birth control, I would be a father now. We are animals, our instinct to reproduce is hard wired into us. Our ancestors ‘Lucy’ and all those who came before and after her, had no problem reproducing with out the knowledge of marriage. The proposed ban on gay marriages in my opinion is nothing but homophobics legislating morality.

-Marijuana
At the very least the ban is hypocritical. Last I checked it was not against the law to smoke a cigarette in the presence of a child. If I recall correctly, smoking a joint is not addictive and is less harmful than smoking a cigarette. The ban on marijuana is political and financially motivated. The cig companies have a lot to loose if marijuana becomes legal. Regardless of all this, in the final analysis, if I want to kill my self by what ever means I choose …alcohol, nicotine, THB or what ever else twisted minds come up with, what right is it of government to intervene? The protection of children is a valid concern, but that argument can be made with nearly anything, driving, smocking, drinking… you name it. If we were to make a general law (I believe they exist already) saying if you jeopardize a minors health you risk loosing custody of said minor that’s fine. To limit to one dangerous substance/action while ignoring others is unfair and legally unsound.

You also mention the issue of min wage, science grants… etc. There are times when a small investment up front can have far greater yields down line. I have seen stats that indicated the cost of emergency care for the indigent and illegals of this country costs are exponentially more costly than if we were to have universal health care that encouraged preventive health care. If we do not have min wage, we will have families out on the street committing more crime and industry taking even more advantage of labor. Science is what makes the world go around. Look around you. Nearly everything you touch and wear is the product of science. Vaccines, artificial limbs, medicines, air crafts, cars, food….. science is every where. There are times when the little guy may have an idea to create a miracle but not the funds.

It’s a fine line we walk. We are not a perfect society by any stretch. Not everyone has the same opportunities. Some make the wrong choice. Not everyone can be successful. Someone needs to do the dirty jobs in society for the rest of us to be comfortable. Like it or not we do live in a class system and those at the top cannot survive with out those on the bottom.

One last thought. Someone else on this board started a thread on illegal aliens in this country. Some here love to #### and moan about the cost on society. Time had an article a few months back that argued the cost is pretty neutral. When their labor (far under the min wage), the taxes they pay via sales tax on item purchased and various other factors they are cost neutral. With out their labor most of the produce you eat, a lot of the goods you buy would cost several times what they currently run. Why do you think W wants to give them a break? Because he has a kind and gentle heart? He is doing it because business has him by the short and curlies and he knows just as well as most economist that to cut off the labor supply would be to shoot the US economy in the head.

 

[Leto2]

Thanks for your responses, whether you agree or disagree.

I am agnostic so the idea of ‘divine rights’ is alien to me. The concept of ‘rights’ are human in nature. By that I mean that we have given our selves our rights. We can change them at will. Government is given its power by the people. If we cede our rights to government that is our fault.

Wow. This scares me. You are justifying a govt in which the people don't have rights. You are justifying that a majority can take away a minority's rights--since rights are created by humans, they can justifiable be taken away by humans.

(Agnostic? Can you define that for me? Does it mean you car about all the stuff on this forum but don't care to know whether there's a God?)

I do not believe that if the founding fathers intended for the government to support any type of religion. Regardless of that, since I pay taxs, I have no interest in my tax dollars going to fund any type of religious display. Like I mentioned in a different thread, if someone wants to put up a christmass tree on public property, then it is also my right to put a wica display, pagan display, satanic display right beside it. Do we really need/want that on government property? I would argue no. If you want to have a display of any type, put it on your private property or have your religious institution host it. It is private property and you may do as you choose.

OK, I can agree with this, or at least that the govt shouldn't pay for the Christmas tree. Let it be funded privately. But first, give me back my tax dollars that go to Social Security, welfare, and other stuff that I'll never use so that I have the money to contribute to the Christmas tree. I don't think this is an issue of religion as much as the govt stepping out of its bounds spending wise. As far as "In God we Trust" on the dollar bill, I say it doesn't harm anyone and supports where we get our fundamental rights.

-gay marriage.
The legislation is not about banning heterosexual marriages. The ban is against homosexuals. Even if it were to ban hetero marriages there would be a minimal effect if any on the birth rate. People have babies because they have sex, not because they are married. Take a look at the unwed mother stats in this country if you don’t believe me. I was having sex with my wife long before we made our union. Had we decided to forgo the birth control, I would be a father now. We are animals, our instinct to reproduce is hard wired into us. Our ancestors ‘Lucy’ and all those who came before and after her, had no problem reproducing with out the knowledge of marriage. The proposed ban on gay marriages in my opinion is nothing but homophobics legislating morality.

(homophobics: a word created by the left to make the right look bad.)
Ya, this is a pretty "moral" issue. I'll tell you what, get rid of all welfare and free health care (which is also a moral issue), and I'll vote to legalize gay marriage.

-Marijuana
At the very least the ban is hypocritical. Last I checked it was not against the law to smoke a cigarette in the presence of a child. If I recall correctly, smoking a joint is not addictive and is less harmful than smoking a cigarette. The ban on marijuana is political and financially motivated. The cig companies have a lot to loose if marijuana becomes legal. Regardless of all this, in the final analysis, if I want to kill my self by what ever means I choose …alcohol, nicotine, THB or what ever else twisted minds come up with, what right is it of government to intervene? The protection of children is a valid concern, but that argument can be made with nearly anything, driving, smocking, drinking… you name it. If we were to make a general law (I believe they exist already) saying if you jeopardize a minors health you risk loosing custody of said minor that’s fine. To limit to one dangerous substance/action while ignoring others is unfair and legally unsound.

OK, it's hypocritical. Let's ban smoking as well.
Really though, you do have a good point. Maybe it should be legal, but smoking (tobacco or marijuana) around children should be illegal.
I still need some good rationale for banning drugs, particularly marijuana.

You also mention the issue of min wage, science grants… etc. There are times when a small investment up front can have far greater yields down line. ... Science is what makes the world go around. Look around you. Nearly everything you touch and wear is the product of science. Vaccines, artificial limbs, medicines, air crafts, cars, food….. science is every where. There are times when the little guy may have an idea to create a miracle but not the funds.

I realize this, but why not let it be private investment? There is plenty of incentive. I personally wouldn't give a dime to AIDS research but am willing to give a lot to cancer research. (Start a new topic if you want to discuss.) Why does the govt force me to give money to AIDS research through my tax dollars? If I had the money myself, I could choose where to give it. Business would also have more to invest in research if the govt didn't take so much of their earnings away. There is plenty of incentive for stuff like that -- just look at the pharmaceutical industry.
From my reasoning in my first post, I just don't think it's the govt's place to decide how to spend my money, or anyone else's money.

I have seen stats that indicated the cost of emergency care for the indigent and illegals of this country costs are exponentially more costly than if we were to have universal health care that encouraged preventive health care.

Oh please. Even if that's true in some cases, if there were no illegals... the cost would be ZERO!
Universal health care? Then we have people going to the doctor for bloody noses and colds and govt costs skyrocket (with my money!). If there were no free health care and lower taxes, hospitals would have more money to charitably help others, I would have more money to donate to charities that could pay for people's health care, etc.
By taking away my money and giving it to someone that has a cold, the government has more liberty than I do. That is wrong.

If we do not have min wage, we will have families out on the street committing more crime and industry taking even more advantage of labor.

1. Actually by having a min wage, some people lose their jobs and make no money instead of what they're worth. Take Econ 101 or see this page about price floors.
2. Most adults don't work for minimum wage, teenagers do.
3. By raising min wage, you raise costs for businesses, which raises prices, which makes stuff more expensive for everyone, including min wage workers.
4. It's hard for me to imagine someone working at a very low wage for longer than a year or two of their life. If they stick with one employer, he will eventually give them a raise. If they work hard, they will get a raise. If they strive to acquire new skills on the job or off, they will get a raise, etc. etc.
5. Why should someone get paid more than they're worth?

One last thought. Someone else on this board started a thread on illegal aliens in this country. Some here love to #### and moan about the cost on society. Time had an article a few months back that argued the cost is pretty neutral. When their labor (far under the min wage), the taxes they pay via sales tax on item purchased and various other factors they are cost neutral. With out their labor most of the produce you eat, a lot of the goods you buy would cost several times what they currently run. Why do you think W wants to give them a break? Because he has a kind and gentle heart? He is doing it because business has him by the short and curlies and he knows just as well as most economist that to cut off the labor supply would be to shoot the US economy in the head.

I'm all for immigration--a controlled supply of new labor resouces. It's illegal immigration that makes me "moan". They don't pay taxes. They leech off of us for health care. They don't learn English. They send money to Mexico instead of circulating it here.
You refer to Time.
Well Michael Savage says that the average illegal immigrant costs $22 for every hour they work.

 

[CSAR GYRENE]

So Garfield1966 and I had a brief discussion on another post that got me thinking about "legislating morality". In fact, it got me thinking about the whole purpose of government. Then, by chance, I had a conversation with a Libertarian talk show host on Saturday night (I talked to him at a Halloween party). That also got me thinking and reading.

Here are a couple things that I've found:

1. The proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act.
Think about this--if I don't have the right to go and force my neighbor to give money to the poor, then the government can't do so (through welfare, free health care, etc.). It is an individual's responsibility to determine whether he will give charity or not. If the govt has more powers than the people, then we have created a monster more powerful than the master.
2. Humans have God-given rights.
It's important to remember that our rights are Divinely given, and are not given to us from the government. If they were given to us from the government, the govt could take them away.
Also, I think that separation of church and state means that the govt should not support one single religion, but if the govt takes God out of everything (which is the current trend), then we seemingly no longer get our rights from God but from the govt--it takes away the foundation.
3. Given the above, THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT US AGAINST LOSS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY, both against foreign despots and domestic criminals.
So given this framework, I can't justify a minimum wage (Arizona is about to raise it), welfare, grants to scientists, and a bunch of other garbage our govt meddles with. And others can't justify "legislating morality".

However, a clearer definition of "legislating morality" is needed. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of laws that are only legislating morality.

For example--
* Gay marriage seems to be about morals. But what would happen if there were only gay marriages? Within one generation we wouldn't exist. Perhaps gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because it protects LIFE.
* Smoking marijuana seems to be about morals. But what about parents who smoke around their kids? The govt should protect the kids' lives.
ETC.

I'd like to hear others' thoughts on what I've outlined above. I didn't come up with all of this stuff, but I think I believe it. Reading this and talking to the libertarian have certainly given my thoughts on the role of the government a good shaking.

Outstanding post!

 

[Garfield1966]

Wow. This scares me. You are justifying a govt in which the people don't have rights. You are justifying that a majority can take away a minority's rights--since rights are created by humans, they can justifiable be taken away by humans.

Yes and it scares me too. Rights are eliminated from minorities all the time. Our history is riddled with them. Women were given suffrage in the 1920, blacks were finally given equal protection in the 1960’s… the list is long. Rights are not inherent. They exist because we as humans say they do.

(Agnostic? Can you define that for me? Does it mean you car about all the stuff on this forum but don't care to know whether there's a God?)

Close enough. I do not know if god exists and I do not care one way or the other. It is of little consequence in my life.

OK, I can agree with this, or at least that the govt shouldn't pay for the Christmas tree. Let it be funded privately. But first, give me back my tax dollars that go to Social Security, welfare, and other stuff that I'll never use so that I have the money to contribute to the Christmas tree. I don't think this is an issue of religion as much as the govt stepping out of its bounds spending wise. As far as "In God we Trust" on the dollar bill, I say it doesn't harm anyone and supports where we get our fundamental rights.

Fine, I’ll give you that tax money and you give me back the money I have spent educating other people children, the money wasted on the military, nuke power, spy agencies.

You are aware that ‘In god we trust’ originated under McCarthyism right? We were scared of the evil non-believers in the USSR and had to prove to the world that we were good christians by branding the religious beliefs on our money and our pledge. The phrase was not there prior to that time. As far as our fundamental rights are concerned, see above.

(homophobics: a word created by the left to make the right look bad.)
Ya, this is a pretty "moral" issue. I'll tell you what, get rid of all welfare and free health care (which is also a moral issue), and I'll vote to legalize gay marriage.

The right looks bad all on its own with out our help. Gay marriage is not a item on the auction block to be bartered. The US constitution says that we are all supposed to be equal under the law. So either you treat the gays as equals or you don’t. When we abolish welfare and health care, how do you propose we deal with the homeless and the health care issues that will affect the rest of us when the sick cannot and do not receive health care?

OK, it's hypocritical. Let's ban smoking as well.
Really though, you do have a good point. Maybe it should be legal, but smoking (tobacco or marijuana) around children should be illegal.
I still need some good rationale for banning drugs, particularly marijuana.

No, as much as I would like to ban it, it does not fit my view of governments purpose. If someone wants to kill them selves, who am I and who is the government to stop them? Putting a childs life at risk should be illegal but how do you legislate that? As cold as it sounds, in a free society, there is collateral damage

So are you saying you agree that marijuana should be legal?

I realize this, but why not let it be private investment? There is plenty of incentive. I personally wouldn't give a dime to AIDS research but am willing to give a lot to cancer research. (Start a new topic if you want to discuss.) Why does the govt force me to give money to AIDS research through my tax dollars? If I had the money myself, I could choose where to give it. Business would also have more to invest in research if the govt didn't take so much of their earnings away. There is plenty of incentive for stuff like that -- just look at the pharmaceutical industry.
From my reasoning in my first post, I just don't think it's the govt's place to decide how to spend my money, or anyone else's money.

Simple. When it infects the blood supply and you get aids due to a bad transfusion you will be wishing the government spent more. I don’t have any kids but I believe very strongly in the education of the children. My property tax is over 3% here in Texas and a majority of that goes toward education. It has to do with the greater good. What affects you, may affect me. Nancy Reagan did not give a crap about stem cell research till the lack of treatment for her husband. Then all of a sudden it meant a whole lot to her. Aids is no longer a "gay" disease.

In terms of private research, yes they will cover most of what’s needed. Every now and then there will be a little guy who has the idea but not the cash. Mr. Tucker for instance. I cannot help but wonder if the US government had help fund him, what cars and the auto market would look like to day. Would there be 4 us manufactures? Maybe 10… who knows, but alas we are stuck with 3 who produce crap.

If we all get to choose where our tax dollars go, how much do you want to bet that the military that you probably love so much will have to have a bake sale to keep afloat? I know they won’t get a dime of my money. While it’s a nice idea on paper, it does not work in reality. If taxes are optional, no one pays, if taxes are selective, You and I will both be loosing pet projects.

Oh please. Even if that's true in some cases, if there were no illegals... the cost would be ZERO!
Universal health care? Then we have people going to the doctor for bloody noses and colds and govt costs skyrocket (with my money!). If there were no free health care and lower taxes, hospitals would have more money to charitably help others, I would have more money to donate to charities that could pay for people's health care, etc.
By taking away my money and giving it to someone that has a cold, the government has more liberty than I do. That is wrong.

True, but they are here and they are staying. So do you want to pay more or less?

I'm all for immigration--a controlled supply of new labor resouces. It's illegal immigration that makes me "moan". They don't pay taxes. They leech off of us for health care. They don't learn English. They send money to Mexico instead of circulating it here.
You refer to Time.
Well Michael Savage says that the average illegal immigrant costs $22 for every hour they work.

The article said he is dead wrong. I’ll have to see if I can find it again. We have something like 5,000 miles of MX border, 20,000 miles of coast and another 8,000 or so of CA border. You have a plan to shut that access down?

 

[Seatacus]

Fine, I’ll give you that tax money and you give me back the money I have spent educating other people children,

Don't you think that educating our children benefits all people in this country. After all, if these kids don't get a good education and get good jobs, who is going to pay my Social Security?

I do not know if god exists and I do not care one way or the other. It is of little consequence in my life.

So pretty much you must feel that this life you are living right now is all there is?? Just curious......

True, but they are here and they are staying. So do you want to pay more or less?

They may not if we start requiring employers to verify citenship.

 

[Garfield1966]

Don't you think that educating our children benefits all people in this country. After all, if these kids don't get a good education and get good jobs, who is going to pay my Social Security?
So pretty much you must feel that this life you are living right now is all there is?? Just curious......
They may not if we start requiring employers to verify citenship.

As far as education, I stuck that in there as an argument I have heard many use. If you read farther down (Paragraph starting with "simple" you will see that I strongly support the funds I pay to educate other peoples children

As far as god and life. Yes, I believe this is it.

As far as citizen ship verification is concerned, then we will pay more.

Leto,

Here is one article I found on immigration cost.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...79367-2,00.html

2 excerpts


And immigrants are consumers too: some 80% of what undocumented workers earn in the U.S. stays in the country. A recent study by economists at the University of North Carolina found that Hispanic residents, 45% of whom were undocumented, contributed $9.2 billion in spending to North Carolina's economy in 2004. By taking the least desirable jobs, says John Kasarda, a co-author of the study, "they have kept some industries competitive that would have gone to Mexico and China."

and

The bigger picture is more muddled. Economists at Rand have found wide variances in analyses of the costs to taxpayers of providing services to immigrants, from a "surplus" of $1,400 per immigrant to a "deficit" of $1,600. The majority of immigrants, in fact, pay taxes, even the undocumented (via fake Social Security and taxpayer IDs). Through 2002, illegals paid an estimated $463 billion into Social Security. Their takeout: almost nothing.

 

[Leto2]

Yes and it scares me too. Rights are eliminated from minorities all the time. Our history is riddled with them. Women were given suffrage in the 1920, blacks were finally given equal protection in the 1960’s… the list is long. Rights are not inherent. They exist because we as humans say they do.

Rights are inherent, and that is why women and blacks finally got them. Unfortunately, people didn't understand yet (and some still don't).

Fine, I’ll give you that tax money and you give me back the money I have spent educating other people children, the money wasted on the military, nuke power, spy agencies.

As I said in the first post, the govt is there to give us security. The military is part of that--including nukes, spy agencies, etc. Did you want the USSR to destroy us? Mutually Assured Destruction avoided a much worse conflict. As far as public education, I think it should be privatized as much as possible. Let the market forces do their job and rely more on city and state governments and less on the federal govt.

You are aware that ‘In god we trust’ originated under McCarthyism right? We were scared of the evil non-believers in the USSR and had to prove to the world that we were good christians by branding the religious beliefs on our money and our pledge. The phrase was not there prior to that time.

Actually, you're liberal spin is incorrect. At least according to this Wikipedia article. It was permanently adopted in 1957, but it first appeared on a national coin in 1864. It originally came from "The Star-Spangled Banner". You're right though that it was mainly Christians who got it on there, however, it doesn't say "In the Christian God We Trust".

The right looks bad all on its own with out our help. Gay marriage is not a item on the auction block to be bartered.

It was sarcasm.

When we abolish welfare and health care, how do you propose we deal with the homeless and the health care issues that will affect the rest of us when the sick cannot and do not receive health care?

I just don't want the govt forcing charity. I want to give my money to organizations that I trust and that won't waste it. The organization I donate most to gives 100% of my money to the poor. The govt doesn't. We can solve the problem without the govt forcing it on us.

So are you saying you agree that marijuana should be legal?

Undecided, but certainly not until other changes are made first.

In terms of private research, yes they will cover most of what’s needed. Every now and then there will be a little guy who has the idea but not the cash. Mr. Tucker for instance. I cannot help but wonder if the US government had help fund him, what cars and the auto market would look like to day. Would there be 4 us manufactures? Maybe 10… who knows, but alas we are stuck with 3 who produce crap.

If the idea is good enough and worth enough, it can get funding. I don't know much about Tucker, sorry. Perhaps he should have gone to some venture capitalists?

If we all get to choose where our tax dollars go, how much do you want to bet that the military that you probably love so much will have to have a bake sale to keep afloat? I know they won’t get a dime of my money. While it’s a nice idea on paper, it does not work in reality. If taxes are optional, no one pays, if taxes are selective, You and I will both be loosing pet projects.

The govt should only use limited taxes to perform its primary function, which is what I said in #3 on the first post. Yes, we'll all lose pet projects, but a lot of them can still exist through private funding (because we'll have more money to spend).

The article said he is dead wrong. I’ll have to see if I can find it again. We have something like 5,000 miles of MX border, 20,000 miles of coast and another 8,000 or so of CA border. You have a plan to shut that access down?

That Times article was very biased. The only time they mentioned the opposition, they immediately went on to state something that supported their liberal agenda. They could easily selectively quote studies that support their views, and they did.

 

[KCFlyer]

As far as public education, I think it should be privatized as much as possible. Let the market forces do their job and rely more on city and state governments and less on the federal govt.

Privatized public education. Has a nice ring, doesn't it? What about areas of the country that are not as populated as the major cities...should we doom midwestern kids to a poor education because a privatized industry will not set up in areas where profits are harder to get?

Here's my issue with morals legislation. Christian morals dictate that abortion should be banned. But you don't want your tax dollars to support some irresponsible persons kid. So...legislate the abortion, but don't spend your tax money to see that a kid born to less than responsible parents has any chance at life outside the womb. Is that moral?

 

[700IAM]

I know you people want my two cents:

God didn't want man to have Kings let alone government officials to set forth laws. God's laws are all that is needed but man being man thinks otherwise and elects presidents or have royalty and worships anybody who made it in Hollywood, don't forget the very wealthy get a free worship card too. Everyone breaks a leg to set up people in power and worship them forgetting completely about God's word.

Funny or is it, that God and his word is all we need and we as a people don't agree. The one with real power who is really in charge and running the show has a name with a capital S on his forehead. Everyone gladly follows his instructions and breaks a leg trying to be first in line. Prince of the Air is a good term for this Evil Deity most don’t even know they worship but do so nonetheless by making men into mini Gods following every word they speak. It’s a twisted world we live in when you can see thru the façade set up by the master who has many centuries experience deceiving the masses.

 

[Garfield1966]

Rights are inherent, and that is why women and blacks finally got them.

Not sure how that makes them inherent.

in‧her‧ent  existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.

Obviously since they did not have rights at one point and were given rights at another point, they apparently can be separated and put back together by man, not god.

As I said in the first post, the govt is there to give us security. The military is part of that--including nukes, spy agencies, etc. Did you want the USSR to destroy us? Mutually Assured Destruction avoided a much worse conflict. As far as public education, I think it should be privatized as much as possible. Let the market forces do their job and rely more on city and state governments and less on the federal govt.

I guess that is one point of view. I do not believe that MADD was a sane policy nor do I think that is why the evil USSR did not invade and take over the world.

Actually, you're liberal spin is incorrect. At least according to this Wikipedia article. It was permanently adopted in 1957, but it first appeared on a national coin in 1864. It originally came from "The Star-Spangled Banner". You're right though that it was mainly Christians who got it on there, however, it doesn't say "In the Christian God We Trust".

My source.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The current Pledge reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The Pledge is recited, on average, tens of millions of times a day -- largely by students in schools across America.

While you are correct that 1864 was the start of the use of god on our money, it was Truman who signed the bill on July 11, 1955 to make it mandatory that it appear on all currency an got rid of the latin “E Pluribus Unumâ€￾. All this when the cold war and communism were the scare words of the day. I believe they are closely related.

I just don't want the govt forcing charity. I want to give my money to organizations that I trust and that won't waste it. The organization I donate most to gives 100% of my money to the poor. The govt doesn't. We can solve the problem without the govt forcing it on us.

Perhaps we ‘can’ but we don’t. My belief is that people are most selfish. They do what helps them and if given the choice, will not help others.

If the idea is good enough and worth enough, it can get funding. I don't know much about Tucker, sorry. Perhaps he should have gone to some venture capitalists?

Obviously not. The Tucker was far ahead of its time in terms of safety and innovation. The Big 3 shut him down. Even today people are amazed at the advanced features his car contained.

That Times article was very biased. The only time they mentioned the opposition, they immediately went on to state something that supported their liberal agenda. They could easily selectively quote studies that support their views, and they did.

Do you have any evidence to support your accusation that the economists at the University of N Carolina and at Rand are biased?

The governments function is what ever the people want it to be.

 

[700IAM]

The governments function is what ever the people want it to be.

Wow did you let yourself open with that remark.

Do you need to be reminded of the continuous corruption and scandals in both parties that is never ending?

Do you think this is what the people want? Why is this so?

Going back and forth over all these trifle issues is vanity. The root problem will not be solved by very flawed and lost men which the government is full of.

When Jesus returns then and only then will this kind of discussion be moot and until then this is all like a dog chasing his tail, never ending round and around.

You need to follow this guy's direction, it makes as much sense because it's like chasing the boggy man.

http://infowars.com/

 

[Leto2]

Privatized public education. Has a nice ring, doesn't it? What about areas of the country that are not as populated as the major cities...should we doom midwestern kids to a poor education because a privatized industry will not set up in areas where profits are harder to get?

Here's my issue with morals legislation. Christian morals dictate that abortion should be banned. But you don't want your tax dollars to support some irresponsible persons kid. So...legislate the abortion, but don't spend your tax money to see that a kid born to less than responsible parents has any chance at life outside the womb. Is that moral?

It's not that I don't want any money to be given to help the poor. It's that *I* should decide if I want to give my own money, the govt shouldn't. It doesn't fall within the government's purpose. If I could get most of my tax dollars back, then I would have more money to give to my favorite charities.

(In any case, there are plenty of couples that would love to adopt children but never get the chance because they are aborted.)