Word for the day: Socialism
Jun 29, 2009
Socialism is basically defined as a political and economic system in which the government owns the means of production and distribution of goods among the citizens. Socialism advocates government not only owning the industry of the state, but also being responsible for distributing the profits equally among its citizens.
According to our Declaration of Independence, “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…” In other words, our Founding Fathers viewed a limited government that allowed the citizens to work and enjoy the profit from their labor. They did not view government as the owner and distributor of our nation’s industry and wealth.
My question now is this, what form of government is currently being advocated?
Cross-posted at http://conservativevoice2008.blogspot.com/
Posted by Rocky |
Categories: Back to the Constitution |
Bo Perrin
June 30th, 2009 at 8:55 pm #
Andrew, these are good thoughts. I would like to take the argument a step further. It is true that the founding fathers created the Constitution to keep the government limited so that that the people could exercise their God-given unalienable rights.
But I would also argue that what is missed is that the Constitution was not merely to keep the government limited but to create a limited government which was legally bound to keep free what was made free.
In 1854 there was an attempt to abolish the government’s use and support of Chaplains within the government and military. The Committee on the Judiciary rejected the supposed Constitutional arguments against the support of Chaplains and in their long petition to be relieved of further consideration of the subject stated the following:
“But making a thing free is as truly a part of legislation as confining it by limitations; and what the Government has made free it is bound to keep free.”
This legal decision was primarily concerned with the constitutionality of the government supporting chaplains and whether this constitutes the “establishment of religion.” Yet, it seems to have a broader application in that Constitutionally the type of government the founders created is actually bound to keep free what has been made free.
Since the Declaration of Independence pontificates what was already true i.e., we have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then the government is bound to do whatever is necessary to keep free what has been made free.
So, to your question, what form of government is currently being advocated?
Bo Perrin
Edward Joell
July 7th, 2009 at 11:18 am #
The Declaration goes on to say, “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. ”
Therefore when you have a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich, it is the right of the working people to establish a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This we did in Novermber 2008.
Lady Liberty
July 10th, 2009 at 1:05 am #
Edward Joell, so you think that a government imposing a continuously heavier tax burden is “for the people”? What taxes, you say? It’s only been less than 6 months. How do you think we are going to pay for this spending spree we are not and will continue to stay on?
That’s a funny idea to quote the Constitution with.
Cosmic Coyote
July 25th, 2009 at 3:54 am #
Edward Joell, who are these “rich” you are talking about? You are advocating class warfare by your comments, setting up “the people” against “the rich.” Those “rich” people are also working people, American citizens who have worked to gain their wealth and have a right to maintain and preserve it from those like you who would steal it away in the name of “the people.” The Constitution wasn’t created to allow one group of people to have the right to take the property of others. People who choose to advance themselves, pursue high goals, and work to achieve those goals deserve the fruits of their efforts. Be honest, Ed, you have wealth envy and want to tear down others who have achieved more than you. Stop trying to steal from others and put your energy into pursuing your own prosperity.
Ted Magnuson
July 30th, 2009 at 11:09 am #
There is a great deal of smoke and fire going around these days when words are thrown about like gasoline. At Jefferson put it in the Declaration ‘Governments are instituted among men (to secure rights-(i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit). If we did not have rule of law (governments), my neighbor could open a raucous night club, blaring loud music all night, selling drugs and spreading venereal diseases, leaving dirty needles in the street…which would do nothing for the quality of my life and where I have chosen to live. Law yes. Anarchy, no. Take that analogy to the bankers who sucked 3 trillion dollars out of America’s retirement savings, to the ‘we can take care of ourselves’ healthcare providers’ whose insurance premiums rise at twice the rate of inflation and shudder as I might, I say ‘bring on the lawyers’ to bring some sanity to this laissez-faire affair. Is that socialism or is that justice?
Andrew Biddinger
August 17th, 2009 at 12:30 am #
You are right Cosmic Coyote,
One of the problems with all Americans is that we are standing around wondering why some people have wealth and we start wanting what they have. (”SPREAD THAT WEALTH AROUND TO ME!”) No.
Let me recommend the book, “The Richest Man in Babylon.” I just finished reading it and it was very thought provoking. I don’t agree with all of the way the book represents wealth, (as the source of happiness), etc,. But, one of the things it explains is that even if you could get some of the “Rich” people’s wealth, it would run out very quickly. The reason people are rich isn’t because of the money in the bank, but it’s because of the stream income coming in from investments.
We must live on less than we make, save, and invest. Read the book, it’s very good. Oh, and it is told through some very great stories.
Edward Joell
October 28th, 2009 at 8:36 am #
Who are these rich? How about people like Bernard Madoff of the Ponzi scheme fame; The Enron executives like Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling who flushed away the life savings of working people while enriching themselves, and who even after being convicted for fraud and conspiracy was still able to pass his stolen wealth on to his children. The AIG executives who “Less than a week after the federal government committed $85 billion to bail out AIG, executives of the giant AIG insurance company headed for a week-long retreat at a luxury resort and spa, the St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, California”. Meanwhile, thanks to these all of these “working people” “who worked to gain their wealth”. Millions of people who expected to have plenty to retire on early now have lost it all and will be completely reliant on Social Security. Other Billions, world-wide, have been thrown out of work, and have been out of work for months due to the financial shenanigans of these “working people” “who worked to gain their wealth”. But of course these ill gotten gains are sacrosanct. Strange how other Drug dealers and Mafiosi have their benefits of their illegal activity confiscated but these criminal who have committed crimes a thousand times worse kept their ill-gooten gains.