Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:23:44 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

Or the
American people could, once again, avail themselves of the right noted he
"whenever any form of government becomes destructive of 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 affect their Safety and Happiness"
should no lesser remedy suffice.

So does that mean the American people could abolish or alter this form of government (democratic republic) to another form of their choosing (say a monarchy, oligarchy or dictatorship)? If the American people are fed up, could they choose a socialist government if that's what makes the majority happy?

It would seem to me that this would go against the constitution as presently written, so in reality attempting to abolish this present form of government is really a subversive act, is it not? Treason, no?

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 1:27:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:

The constitution doesn't specifically prohibit collecting taxes and using the money to buy public parks, or sponsor public art. It is a framework for guaranteeing rights.

Read Amendment X to see why your statement is incorrect.

Sorry, you are wrong. Taxes are constitutional. It is payment for you getting to use the government's money and guarantees of your various properties and freedoms and protections that the government extends to you, whether you deserve it or not. Without government, who is to say that the house that you (theoretically) own is really yours? Anyone stronger than you with a bigger gun could very easily dispossess you of your property at any time, as happens in places like Somalia, Kenya, Congo, etc., where government is weak or non-existent.

What's more interesting is that money is not yours to begin with, it belongs to the US treasury, it is government property, which you are allowed to use to barter and pay debts and taxes. You may not alter it or copy it, and there are all kinds of other restrictions on its use.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:30:21 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

You wouldn't support censorship of free speech but if the government and most other people did support it then you would support it too???

Well, maybe he might support "reasonable" restrictions on free speech that many
other countries, generally considered to be democracies, have in their laws.

Thus, Canada and most European countries have laws against inciting racial
hatred.

I don't support those restrictions, either. I support free speech even
if it is hateful. Not until it directly incited violence- meaning that
specific speech is directly tied to specific violence- do I think it
is reasonable to consider it no longer protected. That is generally
the way things are now in the U.S.

My personal position is an intermediate and principled one. I think that we
should not prohibit expression of political views because we find them
objectionable - but while this means an essay arguing the case, say, for a
return to Negro slavery could not be banned, regulating channels of *mass
entertainment* to prevent them from *manipulating emotions* to harmful ends is
something I think licit.

I would only consider it valid to regulate channels of mass
entertainment that are carried on a public medium, such as the
airwaves. Not on private channels, however.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:27:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:

The constitution doesn't specifically prohibit collecting taxes and using the money to buy public parks, or sponsor public art. It is a framework for guaranteeing rights.

Read Amendment X to see why your statement is incorrect.

Fortunately, that amendment is losing strength to subsequent
amendments (such as 14).

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:43:12 PM UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 1:27:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:

The constitution doesn't specifically prohibit collecting taxes and using the money to buy public parks, or sponsor public art. It is a framework for guaranteeing rights.

Read Amendment X to see why your statement is incorrect.

Sorry, you are wrong. Taxes are constitutional.

I never said that taxes are unconstitutional. Some of the uses to which those taxes might be diverted could be unconstitutional, however.

It is payment for you getting to use the government's money and guarantees of your various properties and freedoms and protections that the government extends to you, whether you deserve it or not. Without government, who is to say that the house that you (theoretically) own is really yours? Anyone stronger than you with a bigger gun could very easily dispossess you of your property at any time, as happens in places like Somalia, Kenya, Congo, etc., where government is weak or non-existent.

If you were to have actually read and understood the Constitution, you would (possibly) not have written such an absurd paragraph.

The Constitution provides for national defense, a system of courts, currency, to be handled by the federal government. If poetry festivals are deemed necessary, then state or local governments can, -perhaps-, fund them or better yet individuals can do so.

Again, check Amendment X and read it this time.

What's more interesting is that money is not yours to begin with, it belongs to the US treasury, it is government property, which you are allowed to use to barter and pay debts and taxes.

Incorrect. The government makes coins and paper currency, but wealth is created by the private sector.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:14:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:43:12 PM UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 1:27:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:

The constitution doesn't specifically prohibit collecting taxes and using the money to buy public parks, or sponsor public art. It is a framework for guaranteeing rights.

Read Amendment X to see why your statement is incorrect.

Sorry, you are wrong. Taxes are constitutional.

I never said that taxes are unconstitutional. Some of the uses to which those taxes might be diverted could be unconstitutional, however.

It is payment for you getting to use the government's money and guarantees of your various properties and freedoms and protections that the government extends to you, whether you deserve it or not. Without government, who is to say that the house that you (theoretically) own is really yours? Anyone stronger than you with a bigger gun could very easily dispossess you of your property at any time, as happens in places like Somalia, Kenya, Congo, etc., where government is weak or non-existent.

If you were to have actually read and understood the Constitution, you would (possibly) not have written such an absurd paragraph.

You may have read it, but I believe that you do not fully understand it. So, we are at odds there. Will have to leave it to the Supreme court to interpret it. Unless you think you are more intelligent than they are.

It is not absurd to believe that our personal property can be taken away by a stronger force if there is not a body of law to protect it, and a government to enforce it. That is where my tax money goes, to pay for it.

The Constitution provides for national defense, a system of courts, currency, to be handled by the federal government. If poetry festivals are deemed necessary, then state or local governments can, -perhaps-, fund them or better yet individuals can do so.

If poetry festivals are deemed necessary for the proper functioning of this nation, then indeed the constitution does not disallow money to be spent on such.


Again, check Amendment X and read it this time.

Of course I have read it. Fortunately you are not the arbiter of what it says.


What's more interesting is that money is not yours to begin with, it belongs to the US treasury, it is government property, which you are allowed to use to barter and pay debts and taxes.

Incorrect. The government makes coins and paper currency, but wealth is created by the private sector.

What I said is not incorrect. You interpret it as such, but that carries no weight whatsoever. In the end, it is our laws that govern, not your desires.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:14:49 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Incorrect. The government makes coins and paper currency, but wealth is created by the private sector.

Wealth can be created by the private sector, just as it can be
destroyed by the private sector. Government is also perfectly capable
of both creating and destroying wealth. When the government invests
tax money in public infrastructure, for instance, it is generally
creating wealth. When the government invests in scientific research it
is generally creating wealth. There are many government programs that
return more value than they cost, and those might be seen as creating
wealth, as well.

wrote:
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:43:43 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 8:04:58 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:44:32 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

It doesn't matter if everyone in a society wants to spend money on
such things. These are the sort of decisions that a democratic society
takes by vote.

There was no vote by the people or even Congress on whether the fund
the poetry festival. The National Endowment for the Humanities decided
that.

That means it was approved by society. Our elected representatives
created that organization for the purpose of funding the arts.

If most people want that kind of support for the arts,
it's proper for the government to offer it.

Most people haven't specifically asked for that kind of support and
THAT'S the issue here.

They have, through their representatives. These kinds of programs are
quite popular.

"Quite popular" does not mean it should be done by the federal government.
It has been said that such largess is contrary to the Constitution:

https://fee.org/resources/not-your-to-give-2/

Crockett:
"certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours
should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering
women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury,
and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

Constituent:
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle."

"the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly
observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets
it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

"The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to
do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys,
and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation
of the Constitution."

"You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud
and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people
on the other."

If it's against the Constitution to pay for certain things, even if the
treasury is "full and overflowing." it is certainly foolhardy it to do so
when we are already spending more money than is collected. This is a recipe
for disaster. At this point, the gov't. cannot allow interest rates to
rise or our nation will become insolvent.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves
largess out of the public treasury." -- Author unknown

Excellent post.

The NEH is getting close to $150,000 per year. That's about one dollar
from every worker in the labor force, or for every net-taxpayer. If
someone likes a particular example of art, let him buy it with his own money.



We have a better way. Much of arts funding comes from the national lottery.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:55:39 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:14:49 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Incorrect. The government makes coins and paper currency, but wealth is created by the private sector.

Wealth can be created by the private sector, just as it can be
destroyed by the private sector. Government is also perfectly capable
of both creating and destroying wealth. When the government invests
tax money in public infrastructure, for instance, it is generally
creating wealth. When the government invests in scientific research it
is generally creating wealth. There are many government programs that
return more value than they cost, and those might be seen as creating
wealth, as well.

Your silly argument is destroyed by the real world examples of the former USSR, Cuba and North Korea, etc., where socialist governments that run everything fail to create much in the way of wealth. USA vs USSR, South Korea vs North Korea, West Germany vs East Germany. Get the picture?

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:16:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:55:39 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:14:49 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Incorrect. The government makes coins and paper currency, but wealth is created by the private sector.

Wealth can be created by the private sector, just as it can be
destroyed by the private sector. Government is also perfectly capable
of both creating and destroying wealth. When the government invests
tax money in public infrastructure, for instance, it is generally
creating wealth. When the government invests in scientific research it
is generally creating wealth. There are many government programs that
return more value than they cost, and those might be seen as creating
wealth, as well.

Your silly argument is destroyed by the real world examples of the former USSR, Cuba and North Korea, etc., where socialist governments that run everything fail to create much in the way of wealth. USA vs USSR, South Korea vs North Korea, West Germany vs East Germany. Get the picture?

You obviously don't, since your examples have nothing to do with what
I said. Countries with socialist economies and generally despotic
governments have not done well in the last century. Which tells us a
lot about socialist economic systems and despotic governments, but not
much else.

There are numerous examples of governments investing in things which
create value. Free governments with capitalistic economies.