Candidate Declaration: iori_komei, Socialist

Originally posted by slackerwire
Social freedom meaning one can do whatever they want and stick someone else with the bill?

Economic equality - I work my ass off so some unmotivated loser gets a piece of my paycheck.

That sound about right?

Social freedom as in you can do whatever you like so long as you are not directly
non-consensually interfering with someone else's freedom.

Economic equality as in the rich being economically equal to the middle-class and
the poor being uplifted to the same status.

So that everyone, yourself included has a fair chance at life.

Originally posted by slackerwire
Are you serious? Fortunately for those of us in the U.S., such a terrible idea is Unconstitutional.

1. It's done as it is, just under a system that badly needs reform since it gives
money to the wrong people.

2. I tis not against the Constitution, and I say that having read the Constitution
so many times over the years (4 times this year) that I've lost count and written
an entirely different Constitution base don the U.S. Constitution.

Originally posted by iori_komei




Economic equality as in the rich being economically equal to the middle-class and
the poor being uplifted to the same status.

Thereby taking motivation away from people to try and better themselves.

So that everyone, yourself included has a fair chance at life.

Everyone has a fair chance, what you want to do is guarantee fairness. Life isn't fair, and it isn't the governments job to make it that way.

2. I tis not against the Constitution, and I say that having read the Constitution
so many times over the years (4 times this year) that I've lost count and written
an entirely different Constitution base don the U.S. Constitution.

Really? Care to explain?

I haven't had a good Constitutional debate in a while, people usually give up when they realize they are wrong.

Originally posted by slackerwire
Thereby taking motivation away from people to try and better themselves.

It's only because of the environment someone is raised that money and material
gain is a motivating force.

The betterment of ones self and Humanity as a whole should be motivation
enough to do something, especially something you may not particularly enjoy.

Apart from that people will do what they enjoy regardless of any kind of reward,
so if people actually went into career fields that they enjoyed rather than go into dull
uninteresting jobs they've been socio-psychologically conditioned to go into because it
offers more money, which in the end brings no happiness, people would be alot better off.

Everyone has a fair chance, what you want to do is guarantee fairness. Life isn't fair, and it isn't the governments job to make it that way.

Fairness and equality are among the most important things and until Humanity
can be so naturally must be enforced.

Really? Care to explain?

I haven't had a good Constitutional debate in a while, people usually give up when they realize they are wrong.

I dislike debating, it brings out the worst in me.

Originally posted by iori_komei


It's only because of the environment someone is raised that money and material
gain is a motivating force.

The betterment of ones self and Humanity as a whole should be motivation
enough to do something, especially something you may not particularly enjoy.

How does feeling good and bettering humanity pay your mortgage or power bill?

Fairness and equality are among the most important things and until Humanity
can be so naturally must be enforced.

Do you live in the U.S.?

I dislike debating, it brings out the worst in me.

ok then, how about you just provide the Article or Section of the Constitution which authorizes income redistribution?

Originally posted by slackerwire
How does feeling good and bettering humanity pay your mortgage or power bill?

I did'nt say it does, I'm simply saying that money and material gain is only a
motivating force if people are taught that they should want it.

Do you live in the U.S.?

Yes, I was born and raised here.
As were my parents and most of my family going back between three to five generations.

ok then, how about you just provide the Article or Section of the Constitution which authorizes income redistribution?

There is not a part of the Constitution that says you can't nor that you can,
it is one of the many things that was not added to to be decided on in the future.

Originally posted by iori_komei

I did'nt say it does, I'm simply saying that money and material gain is only a
motivating force if people are taught that they should want it.

People need to be taught that they should have a roof over their heads, foot in their stomachs and clothes on their back?

Yes, I was born and raised here.
As were my parents and most of my family going back between three to five generations.

Good, and since you claim to be fairly knowledgeable on the Constitution, you will notice that there is no guarantee of life being fair. The Delcaration of Independence even states that only the PURSUIT of happiness is an inalienable right. Neither document mentions anything at all concerning the federal governments duty to make life fair for people.

There is not a part of the Constitution that says you can't nor that you can,
it is one of the many things that was not added to to be decided on in the future.

Unless that power is expressly delegated to the government by the Constitution, it is prohibited. Article 1 Section 8 details exactly what powers government has when it comes to our money, and in no way, not even through extremist interpretations, does it authorize income redistribution.

Originally posted by slackerwire
People need to be taught that they should have a roof over their heads, foot in their stomachs and clothes on their back?

People should be taught to be compassionate, to live comfortably not exorbitantly
and to work to better themselves.

Good, and since you claim to be fairly knowledgeable on the Constitution, you will notice that there is no guarantee of life being fair. The Delcaration of Independence even states that only the PURSUIT of happiness is an inalienable right. Neither document mentions anything at all concerning the federal governments duty to make life fair for people.

Nor does it prohibit it.
And actually it says Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Unless that power is expressly delegated to the government by the Constitution, it is prohibited. Article 1 Section 8 details exactly what powers government has when it comes to our money, and in no way, not even through extremist interpretations, does it authorize income redistribution.

The powers not vested in the Constitution are reserved for the state governments
and the people, the people make up all parts of the government, the Legislative
and Executive are voted on by the people and therefore hold the power to do such things,
which means that the people have created/authorized it by proxy.

Originally posted by iori_komei

People should be taught to be compassionate, to live comfortably not exorbitantly
and to work to better themselves.

And government obtains the power to do that from?

Do you also think that jamming ideas such as "diversity is great" down peoples throats is a function of government?

Nor does it prohibit it.
And actually it says Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It also doesn't expressly prohibit numerous other atrocities government could commit, are you saying that if it isn't prohibited, it's ok?

The powers not vested in the Constitution are reserved for the state governments
and the people, the people make up all parts of the government, the Legislative
and Executive are voted on by the people and therefore hold the power to do such things,
which means that the people have created/authorized it by proxy.

The "people" have also voted in Senators and Representatives who have passed countless unconstitutional laws (see gun control, patriot act, etc etc).

Does that make it Constitutional? Absolutely not.

Originally posted by slackerwire
And government obtains the power to do that from?

Do you also think that jamming ideas such as "diversity is great" down peoples throats is a function of government?

I was saying that on a more personal note, but I do think they should incorporated
into education.

It also doesn't expressly prohibit numerous other atrocities government could commit, are you saying that if it isn't prohibited, it's ok?

No, I'm not saying that everything not prohibited in the Constitution is permittable.
That is why we're a Democracy, people vote for or against the things not prohibited.

The "people" have also voted in Senators and Representatives who have passed countless unconstitutional laws (see gun control, patriot act, etc etc).

Does that make it Constitutional? Absolutely not.

If the Constitution is changed it does, which is something that was written into it in
the first place.

But getting back to it wealth redistribution is'nt unconstitutional so the Constitution
does'nt require a change for it.

Originally posted by slackerwire
Unless that power is expressly delegated to the government by the Constitution, it is prohibited. Article 1 Section 8 details exactly what powers government has when it comes to our money, and in no way, not even through extremist interpretations, does it authorize income redistribution.

So you would then say the current government is breaking the law? Sinse it is giving benifits to those who are poorer than you or who need it (though currently mostly in the wrong way and to the wrong people)

Originally posted by iori_komei


But getting back to it wealth redistribution is'nt unconstitutional so the Constitution
does'nt require a change for it.

Have anything to back up that contention? A SCOTUS finding? Anything?

Originally posted by Edn

So you would then say the current government is breaking the law? Sinse it is giving benifits to those who are poorer than you or who need it (though currently mostly in the wrong way and to the wrong people)

'

Absolutely. Not just this current government either.

Originally posted by slackerwire
Have anything to back up that contention? A SCOTUS finding? Anything?

I'll reiterate the point I've read it (and understand it) umpteen times and am generally smart.

Originally posted by iori_komei

I'll reiterate the point I've read it (and understand it) umpteen times and am generally smart.

Your personal beliefs and opinions bias your understanding of it. The Supreme Court has never found the Constitution to authorize income redistribution no matter how much you would like it to .

Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by iori_komei

I'll reiterate the point I've read it (and understand it) umpteen times and am generally smart.

Your personal beliefs and opinions bias your understanding of it. The Supreme Court has never found the Constitution to authorize income redistribution no matter how much you would like it to .

The Constitution does'nt have to authorize it, the people have the power to do that.

If we only did what the Constitution said originally and never created programs
we would have been a failed state along time ago.

Originally posted by iori_komei
The redistribution of wealth yes

Queue the Soviet national anthem.

Originally posted by iori_komei
but I really don't care what people spend there money
on and would not tell people they can't buy something.

Yes you do. Through your social programs, which is why your proposed tax takes such a massive portion of earned wealth, and through such, economic freedom.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Economic equality as in the rich being economically equal to the middle-class and
the poor being uplifted to the same status.

So that everyone, yourself included has a fair chance at life.

What this does, through taxation, is directly harm the economy. All the poor that you feed are replaced by even more who you can't afford to without raising taxes even more. It's a sort of paradox. By trying to make people equal, you actually do nothing but bring the middle class down to the level of the low class, while giving those who own things (the "haves", be it through government power or economic power) a tremendous amount of power. The Soviet Union attempted such equality. It didn't work so well, even if you ignore the fascism.

Originally posted by iori_komei
1. It's done as it is, just under a system that badly needs reform since it gives
money to the wrong people.

Not really. If you mean welfare, it doesn't work very well, as you said.

Originally posted by iori_komei
2. I tis not against the Constitution, and I say that having read the Constitution
so many times over the years (4 times this year) that I've lost count and written
an entirely different Constitution base don the U.S. Constitution.

Then would you be so kind as to show us what part of the Constitution authorizes such things?

And you realize that four times a year is far too little, correct? I read it roughly once every two to three days, not counting specific portions I look at for research (such as debating the legality of certain things).

Originally posted by iori_komei
The Constitution does'nt have to authorize it, the people have the power to do that.

So first you want to be the President, and then you don't want to follow the Constitution?

You're speaking of treason, Iori. Treason against the Constitution of the United States, which you would take an EXPLICIT oath to uphold. And as such, I would pray that you would be impeached. Because if not, I would have to remove you from office myself.

Originally posted by iori_komei
If we only did what the Constitution said originally and never created programs
we would have been a failed state along time ago.

Such an idiotic comment doesn't deserve a response.

I see no need to respond to any of the last two posts since I don't see the point in rehashing things.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I see no need to respond to any of the last two posts since I don't see the point in rehashing things.

No offense intended, but are you sure you have been reading the United States Constitution? The things you propose are obviously unconstitutional (I am not the only one who thinks so), yet you claim they are without being able to provide any supporting evidence.

To have supporting evidence you must be asserting that something exists.

I am saying that they are not unconstitutional because nothing in the Constitution forbids them.

Therefore I can not have supporting evidence because I am not asserting something exists.