Why do people who want to eliminate taxation and government think they will get utopia not Somalia?
No, your statement is again incorrect as a matter of law in the U.S. and unpersuasive philosophically.
The very idea of majority rule concerned the framers and founders as they understood majority rule could trample the rights and property of people and become "tyranny of he majority." So, they expressly and specifically sought to limit majority rule with the existence of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
As I said before, the justification of a consensus or majority rule exists is not a sufficient reason, not legally or philosophically.
So, let me this straight. If a "Robin Hood" bill is proposed, scrutinized, reviewed, edited and eventually passed in both the House and Senate, and then signed by the President that's not enough to mandate it?
I stand corrected in my wording. I don't see the difference between campaign contributions and campaign ads, etc.. They are both funding a campaign.My goodness. Misinformation strikes again. SCOTUS never gave corporations personhood for campaign contributions. This is a factually incorrect statement and has no basis in the facts or decision of the case Citizens United v FEC. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
My question has nothing to do with majority rule, and I'm assuming there is no violation of the Constitution in the scenario.As a matter of law, majority rule is not sufficient to validate a statute as lawful. (I do not address your comment of "mandate it" as I have no idea what this phrase means in terms of the legal dialogue). The statute does, after all, have to comport to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, both of which were conceived to, in part, limit majorly rule. As long as the Constitution has persisted in the U.S., majority rule was not enough to validate a statute as lawful.
which I am assuming is meaning requiring under law.This is perhaps a commendable belief but your mere belief really isn't sufficient to mandate another individual take care of another individual.
Please do not use the Scriptures to justify taking from those who earned to give to those who do not in exchange for votes and political power. Caring for those who cannot care for themselves is charity. Caring for those who can take care of themselves but choose not to is indulging laziness. Taking from those who produce to give to those who have not earned it is called theft.
Public education in MANY other countries is awesome! Of course, you guys pay your teachers borderline poverty rates...We have never tried free-market health care in the U.S., only the crony capitalism that ensures big insurance stays alive and thrives (see Obamacare). I would wager that a competitive health care marketplace and health insurance marketplace would drive costs down.
Private education is leaps and bounds ahead of public education in the states. Public education is (mostly) horrible here in the states.
What it failed from isn't the issue.LOL, Somalia is a failed socialist state and it is what happens when a socialist state fails, you cannot lay that one on libertarians, anarchists, or anybody but socialists. Try again.
My question has nothing to do with majority rule, and I'm assuming there is no violation of the Constitution in the scenario.
Furthermore, I never once argued majority rule, I merely worded the same thing three different ways. My definition of mandate is what I am assuming yours is in this post:
which I am assuming is meaning requiring under law.
Just a reminder: the conversation is not intrinsically about the United States. The people can, of course, amend the constitution. Unless that is somehow a god.As a matter of law, majority rule is not sufficient to validate a statute as lawful. (I do not address your comment of "mandate it" as I have no idea what this phrase means in terms of the legal dialogue). The statute does, after all, have to comport to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, both of which were conceived to, in part, limit majorly rule. As long as the Constitution has persisted in the U.S., majority rule was not enough to validate a statute as lawful.
Philosophically, majority rule is not sufficient.
Just a reminder, I have made a non-legal, philosophical argument. And the context between of the dialogue between myself and the other post demonstrates the choice of law was of the U.S.Just a reminder: the conversation is not intrinsically about the United States. The people can, of course, amend the constitution. Unless that is somehow a god.
This is borderline poverty?Public education in MANY other countries is awesome! Of course, you guys pay your teachers borderline poverty rates...
The prison system.Also, give examples where the public sector of government is more efficient than the private sector of business.
huh. Apologies. I've seen MUCH lower numbers (starting teachers making well under 30Gs).This is borderline poverty?
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_211.60.asp
According to the article below from 2013 England pays better than most OECD members and yet they are paid approximately $10-15,000 dollars less a year than US primary school teachers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...aries-than-those-in-most-other-countries.html
What do the teachers make where you live?
No worries, there is so much conflicting information out there.huh. Apologies. I've seen MUCH lower numbers (starting teachers making well under 30Gs).
STARTING teachers making about 55Gs where I live....and end at just over 100.
But socialism is based on scripture. The Bible tells us that the early Church, following the teachings of Jesus, sold all their possessions and gave all the proceeds to St. Peter to redistribute. And the death penalty was imposed on those who failed to comply. That is socialism to the max.Please do not use the Scriptures to justify taking from those who earned to give to those who do not in exchange for votes and political power. Caring for those who cannot care for themselves is charity. Caring for those who can take care of themselves but choose not to is indulging laziness. Taking from those who produce to give to those who have not earned it is called theft.
But you are changing the subject.
Comparing salaries is a always a messy business.No worries, there is so much conflicting information out there.
Where my daughter lives in an US east coast wealthy, small town, primary school teachers are making on the average of $90,000 a year. But I live in a very small, rural town, where people don't make a lot of money and our teachers make about $40,000 to start. So there is a wide spread depending on the town even.
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.The Bible tells us that the early Church, following the teachings of Jesus, sold all their possessions and gave all the proceeds to St. Peter to redistribute. And the death penalty was imposed on those who failed to comply.
So the early church was socialism with capital punishment! Huzzah!1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
Ananias and Sapphira died because they lied about what they were giving to God's people. They didn't have to sell it to give and they didn't have to give it all, it was theirs at their disposal. But they said that they were giving it but didn't.
This is very much like the Pharisees law of Korbin which Jesus taught against because the person with the money would say that they were giving to God so they couldn't care for the parents, when in fact they still had it to do whatever they wanted to with it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?