Do poor women have a right to have children

a reply to: tanstaafl

I guess you arent familiar with anything of the foundations of free market economics.

Adam Smith admits that if you allow for the market to be controlled by any means it no longer becomes free.

He uses the analogy of the rich who castle themselves in away from the bottom rung of society and solely relies on generational wealth. Inevitably those who shut themselves out of the social aspects of the market will fall behind.
Capitalism is based off more then just capital wealth, its how you move the capital around. And it doesnt magically just happen, it needs good social ties to make it count.

How do you think people like Rockefeller, or the rothschilds became more powerful then monarchs?

If you keep the bottom of society down it will never have the chance to climb. If you suppress the middle class it will become restless and want to break free.
The top cannot dictate the bottom. It never, ever works.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: tanstaafl

I guess you arent familiar with anything of the foundations of free market economics.

I guess I'm more familiar with it than you are about how taxation works, in t hat you apparently didn't/don't believe that it is theft of private property at gunpoint.

Adam Smith admits that if you allow for the market to be controlled by any means it no longer becomes free.

Yes, but the devil is in the details.

Define: controlled.

How do you think people like Rockefeller, or the rothschilds became more powerful then monarchs?

They engaged in monopolistic practices enforced at gunpoint through government laws/regulations.

If you keep the bottom of society down it will never have the chance to climb. If you suppress the middle class it will become restless and want to break free.

I agree. What I disagree with is the remedy. You apparently believe that people have to be forced at gunpoint to do what you claim is in their best interest. I don't.
The top cannot dictate the bottom. It never, ever works.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Then, I guess you would be happier with no govt?
No military force, no public schools, no fire dept or police force.
I mean if collecting taxes is taking your money at gunpoint, does it really matter what that money is used for if what you are against is the actual collection of taxes?
Or is this just a mild disagreement over what the govt is using some of those funds for?
First, if you have a problem with them collecting taxes, well I guess you better start working a tad harder and become one of the one percent and let them clue you in as to how they manage to skate away without paying any.
But, I imagine you have no problem with being taxed for your police forces, your army, your roads and highways, ect. So why dont you just drop the bit about being forced at gunpoint, cheating the IRS is probably the most common crime committed.

a reply to: tanstaafl

No one is forcing you at gun point to pay taxes. You want to go live in Lala land in you Ron Swanson libertarian fantasy go ahead. No one asked you to or is forcing you to live in their country or nation. But guess what, ya do, so work with the system.. just so happens the US is a welfare state, with barracuda capitalists on every corner waiting to strike.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: tanstaafl

Then, I guess you would be happier with no govt?

I would be happier with about 90% less government.

No military force, no public schools, no fire dept or police force.

No Public Schools, and no Dept of Education, absolutely. But there is a Constitutional basis for funding the Military. Fire Departments and Police are purely State and local matters, the Federal Government/Constitution has no bearing.

I mean if collecting taxes is taking your money at gunpoint,

Not if. It is. If you claim otherwise, you are ignorant, or stupid.

does it really matter what that money is used for if what you are against is the actual collection of taxes?

What makes you think I'm against the collection of taxes? Hint: I never said that.

Or is this just a mild disagreement over what the govt is using some of those funds for?

I believe that the use of any collected taxes for any purpose that is not defined in the Constitution is a vile, UnConstitutional, lawless act, and should be prosecuted criminally as a violation of the Public Trust.

So why dont you just drop the bit about being forced at gunpoint,

No thanks, I'll continue to point out the hypocrisy of those who refuse to call it what it is.

Why don't you drop the holier than thou attitude, and just admit that I am right?

Taxation is theft, at gunpoint. Period. I acknowledge it as a necessary evil, but I also believe that anyone who violates the Public Trust and votes for using collected taxes for anything other than a Constitutionally mandated purpose should be prosecuted, and if convicted, declared an outlaw (ie, bring back the doctrine of outlawry).

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: tanstaafl

No one is forcing you at gun point to pay taxes.

Really? What do you think will eventually happen if I just stop? I'll tell you. Eventually, men with guns will show up at my front door.

No one asked you to or is forcing you to live in their country or nation. But guess what, ya do, so work with the system.. just so happens the US is a welfare state, with barracuda capitalists on every corner waiting to strike.

No, I prefer fighting for truth and justice. A losing battle, I admit.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
TJ

a reply to: tanstaafl

So, no more tax money going into the healthcare, not for the healthcare of the poor, not for the special grants and scholarships to train doctors and teachers, not to help hospitals stay afloat or buy new equipment, not for research and development.
No more Grant's and scholarships or govt backed student loans for colleges and universities. No govt funded colleges and universities.
No insterstate highway system.
EPA, CDC. FDA,..

Just what is outlined in the constitution?
And, dont tell me that the states will be free to pick it all up, because they will go at you to "take your money at gunpoint also", and their constitutions more than likely dont cover these things either.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: tanstaafl

So, no more tax money going into the healthcare, not for the healthcare of the poor, not for the special grants and scholarships to train doctors and teachers, not to help hospitals stay afloat or buy new equipment, not for research and development.

Exactly. There is no delegation of authority in the Constitution to provide free healthcare to anyone, or money for medical research, nor help private businesses (hospitals) 'stay afloat' or buy new equipment.

No more Grant's and scholarships or govt backed student loans for colleges and universities. No govt funded colleges and universities.

Exactly. There is no delegation of authority in the Constitution to provide money for education or schools.

No insterstate highway system.

It has been argued that the delegation of authority to establish 'Post Roads' is a valid basis for the interstate highway system. I'm not sure I agree, but it is a decent argument.

EPA, CDC. FDA,..

Exactly. Again, there is no delegation of authority in the Constitution to provide money for any of that.

Just what is outlined in the constitution?

Can you not read? Article 1 Section 8 clearly lays out the delegated powers of the federal government.

And, dont tell me that the states will be free to pick it all up, because they will go at you to "take your money at gunpoint also", and their constitutions more than likely dont cover these things either.

That is a different question, but irrelevant to the very simple question of what powers the Constitution delegates to Congress over The States.