Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

reply to post by Maslo

How are they logically related? Is there some logical contradiction in having welfare, and allowing feeding homeless at the same time?

There is a contradiction in your sentence right there. If it is a right to feed the homeless, and it is, then there is no lawful authority that can "allow" it. Only those supporting the "welfare" state think in terms of what rights are "allowed" and what are not.

No.

Yes.

So they are not related.

The are most assuredly related. Your insistence on using language such as "allowed" only underscores this relation. The "welfare" state advocates view the world in terms of what government allows, and because of this it is perfectly okay with them that private charities be regulated. This regulation is the relation between the "welfare" state and charities.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


sigh... Again you are getting off-topic with pointless semantics, strawmans and illogical generalisations. Intelligent and intellectually honest person who wants discussion and not trolling would realise I mean "not outlaw" by "allow".

How are they logically related? Is there some logical contradiction in having welfare, and not outlawing feeding homeless at the same time?

Yes.

No.

The are most assuredly related.

You have not shown how.

The "welfare" state advocates view the world in terms of what government allows, and because of this it is perfectly okay with them that private charities be regulated.

Strawman. You are master at them. Building your entire argument around one word.

This regulation is the relation between the "welfare" state and charities.

There are welfare states where feeding the homeless is not banned. Thus this is not something that follows from welfare state. I have already provided the reason for this ban in the previous post, but you ignored it (probably because its shows how your argument is baseless).

reply to post by Maslo

sigh... Again you are getting off-topic with pointless semantics, strawmans and illogical generalisations. Intelligent and intellectually honest person who wants discussion and not trolling would realise I mean "not outlaw" by "allow".

No lawful government can "outlaw" what is lawful, and any intelligent, intellectually honest person who is not engaging in logical fallacies and not trolling knows this.

How are they logically related? Is there some logical contradiction in having welfare, and not outlawing feeding homeless at the same time?

If you were being intellectually honest, you would stop calling the socialized programs of wealth redistribution "welfare". Again, only a socialist advocate would attempt to frame the lawful action of feeding the homeless in terms of legality, and again I stress that what is lawful cannot be lawfully "outlawed". Only the socialist will attempt to frame it otherwise.

I have shown the relation, and your posts continue to support that relationship. Earlier, without any citations, you argued that the "research" shows that the purpose of "outlawing" feeding the homeless was really about keeping the homeless from peaceably assembling. Think about that, you are excusing the "outlawing" of a lawful act that you pretend is wrong by arguing that governments are merely attempting to trample over the rights of the homeless not the charities trying to feed the homeless, and in spite of the fact that fines are levied upon the charities who ignore this "outlawing" of feeding the homeless, in your mind, must just be an extension of trampling over the rights of the homeless and not trampling upon the rights of charitable people.

All of that and you have the audacity to imply you are "intellectually honest".

How are they logically related? Is there some logical contradiction in having welfare, and not outlawing feeding homeless at the same time?

Yes there is feeding the homeless must be state sanctioned and those who violate that act of charity are arrested

www.washingtonpost.com... log.html

abcnews.go.com...

theeconomiccollapseblog.com...

Sounds like a contradiction to me after all "helping others" out is the name of the game.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

No lawful government can "outlaw" what is lawful, and any intelligent, intellectually honest person who is not engaging in logical fallacies and not trolling knows this.

Government makes laws, so it sure can.

If you were being intellectually honest, you would stop calling the socialized programs of wealth redistribution "welfare".

Is this another of your trollish attempts to derail the thread with pointless semantics? Its called Welfare, thats an established term (even you used it in the title of the thread), and thats what we are going to use.

Again, only a socialist advocate would attempt to frame the lawful action of feeding the homeless in terms of legality, and again I stress that what is lawful cannot be lawfully "outlawed". Only the socialist will attempt to frame it otherwise.

Lawful action can surely be outlawed, government laws can change. I am really suspecting you are trolling now.

I have shown the relation, and your posts continue to support that relationship. Earlier, without any citations, you argued that the "research" shows that the purpose of "outlawing" feeding the homeless was really about keeping the homeless from peaceably assembling.

Thats what the motivation behind such laws is.

Think about that, you are excusing the "outlawing" of a lawful act that you pretend is wrong by arguing that governments are merely attempting to trample over the rights of the homeless not the charities trying to feed the homeless, and in spite of the fact that fines are levied upon the charities who ignore this "outlawing" of feeding the homeless, in your mind, must just be an extension of trampling over the rights of the homeless and not trampling upon the rights of charitable people.

I am not excusing or pretending anything. I have explicitly stated I disagree with these laws (and motivations behind them) - again its a strawman from your side.
I have only provided the empirical reason why such laws were made - it was not because of welfare, that has nothing to do with it. Its because the lawmakers wanted clean streets without the homeless assembling.

All of that and you have the audacity to imply you are "intellectually honest".

Well, due to your extensive use of fallacies we have already wasted 3 posts (yet..) on a law which has been shown to be completely logically and empirically unrelated to welfare state in my first response. I hate to call your intellectual honesty into question, but I am forced to.

reply to post by Maslo

Government makes laws, so it sure can.

You are arguing that a lawful government can "make" unlawful laws, and insisting on calling yourself "intellectually honest"?

The right to life is law, and government did not "make" it. The right to speech is law and government did not "make" it. The right to peaceably assemble is law and government did not "make" it. All unalienable rights are law, and government did not "make" them.

Is this another of your trollish attempts to derail the thread with pointless semantics? Its called Welfare, thats an established term (even you used it in the title of the thread), and thats what we are going to use.

The thread, created by me, is predicated on the premise that all people are inherently good and understand their relationship to others is a necessary point of survival, but all governments are bad and have no understanding of their dependency upon the people they seek to govern. It isn't I attempting to derail my own thread, sport.

Lawful action can surely be outlawed, government laws can change. I am really suspecting you are trolling now.

Lawful action can never be "outlawed" and at best a government can only legislate some sort of prohibition in regards to that lawful action, but this best is what is unlawful. This is evidently so under the Constitution for the United States of America where Congress regularly ignores the prohibitions placed upon them in order to prohibit what is an unalienable right. This is why the courts have judicial review, and why an accused as the right to a jury of their peers, both judges and juries having the lawful authority to strike down unlawful legislation.

I am not excusing or pretending anything. I have explicitly stated I disagree with these laws (and motivations behind them) - again its a strawman from your side. I have only provided the empirical reason why such laws were made - it was not because of welfare, that has nothing to do with it. Its because the lawmakers wanted clean streets without the homeless assembling.

You most assuredly are excusing this unlawful behavior and then pretending that you don't, and this post is yet another example of you doing so. You began this last post of yours declaring that governments have the authority to "outlaw" what is lawful.

At this point, it is way beyond laughable your attempt at framing my arguments as logical fallacies, and the expression: "thieves always lock their doors" comes to mind. A thief assumes everyone else is a thief and the reliant upon logical fallacies, such as pretending you are really against "outlawing" lawful actions while you argue that governments get to do this anyway, always assume everyone else argues fallaciously.

Nevermind

Sorry folks, real life came a callin'. Now to pickup where I left off.

Right, the wealthy Americans who would now be saving money that they are no longer paying as taxes. We are to assume that these people would now be using their money to support charity because "hey, what the hell, we aren't paying taxes anymore." People don't often get rich in America out of the kindness of their hearts. Sure a few wealthy people are really great people who love to help others but many more are the polar opposite. The "me,me,me,my,my,my" approach is more common amongst the wealthy than anyone else in the country. What makes one think that these people are suddenly by the grace of God going to wanna help others just because they now have a little more money? The same people who already have much more than they could ever need and still do not give to others of their own free will in exception for when it might benefit themselves in some way...

I'm guessing that in this hypothetical world the population is not increasing and there is no such concept as new people entering the workforce on a daily basis? I'm also assuming that the companies have decided that since taxes have been significantly lowered that they should be generous and not take the extra money for themselves but increase the pay to their employees... Because you know, businesses would never move jobs overseas when they could easily afford to employ Americans for fair pay and still be a very profitable company. Why would they wanna do a thing like that? These are generous people that are offering jobs, we should worship these men... Oh whats that you say? They ARE moving jobs to other lands where they can pay 100 workers less in 1 day than they would be paying 1 American in 1 day? Are you sure? I mean these are honest people who care about more than just themselves and they would never...

Do you see the issue with relying on the goodwill of others? Most of the people who would care enough to help others are not making enough money to do so. How would completely eliminating all forms of welfare change their pay in any truly significant manner? The people who actually do care wouldn't be able to do much more than they already are. I see a homeless person everyday and I don't even live in a big city. If we can't provide for all who need it now, even with government welfare, how exactly would be be able to do so if that welfare were to disappear?

You have to also assume that we would be paying less taxes. I find it very difficult to see the government agreeing to lower taxes even IF they were to completely eliminate all welfare programs. Something tells me that doing so wouldn't mean they lower your taxes. Or are we now assuming that politicians are generally good honest and kind hearted men? Boy what a fantasy land we must live in! If we aren't paying less taxes, how do we have more money to spend on charity?

It truly does seem to me that the people who strongly oppose welfare in any form do not care about anyone but themselves and probably aren't the "donating" type in the first place. It is not enough to simply agree with the obvious and admit that while yes welfare sucks, it is still needed, though a major change is also needed. They think their money is being taken. It is me, me, me, my, my, my - from the very same people who are calling the young crowd that protests in the streets for freedom, the "entitlement generation." They both share that me, me, me, my, my, my perspective yet one is better than the other, how? Their response is often a very worded version of "but mine is right because its mine." Isn't that what you guys say those kids are saying? You do realize that the two of you are doing the exact same thing only over different opinions, right? So maybe America needs to stop whining so freakin much and learn to work together to improve our terrible situation. Not just one side or the other, BOTH! You are both in the wrong so how about instead of pointing finger we all start analyzing our errors, learn from them, and work together to do the job right. OR you can continue to bicker amongst yourselves like toddlers and watch as the nation completely crumbles, proving just how much you love your country. Seriously, time to grow up folks!

I would also like to add an interesting little tid bit. I live in a state that has been called the "volunteer" state. Yet oddly enough whenever I am at a store and the person being paid zilch to accept their cash in exchange for goods asks the customer if they would like to donate a dollar to (insert charity here), more often than not, it is the elderly and the people using a foodstamp card that make a donation. I know it really isn't any of my business to watch the people in front of me and see how they pay and all that crap but what can I say, I'm a very curious person. Good thing I'm not a cat...

Only once in my life have I ever seen a man who had a fairly "successful" look to him make a donation and it was only one dollar. I've donated more than a dollar and I'm technically under the poverty line...

As for those people standing outside taking donations, I've never once witnessed a man in a suit give them anything but you see families and elderly do so fairly often, sure its only a dollar or two usually but how come people with less can help others but those with more can't be bothered with that stuff...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You are arguing that a lawful government can "make" unlawful laws, and insisting on calling yourself "intellectually honest"?

What is "unlawful law"? Thats an obvious oxymoron. Laws are laws.

The right to peaceably assemble is law and government did not "make" it. All unalienable rights are law, and government did not "make" them.

Rights are not a law. Rights are rights and law is a law.

and government did not "make" it.

Laws are made by the government. Its ridiculous to deny this fact. I am more and more convinced that you are trolling, and not interested in rational discussion.
en.wikipedia.org...

The Law[2] is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.[3] Laws are made by governments, specifically by their legislatures. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution (written or unwritten) and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics and society in countless ways and serves as a social mediator of relations between people.

The thread, created by me, is predicated on the premise that all people are inherently good and understand their relationship to others is a necessary point of survival, but all governments are bad and have no understanding of their dependency upon the people they seek to govern.

And what does this opinion of yours even have in common with the established term "Welfare", and my use of it? Another non-sequitur from you. Sometimes it feels like I am talking to random sentence generator.

Lawful action can never be "outlawed" and at best a government can only legislate some sort of prohibition in regards to that lawful action, but this best is what is unlawful.

An action that is legislatively prohibited is by definition unlawful. (Passed) Legislation is the main source of law. If it simply a proposed new law that has not yet been signed into law:
In Canada and the US the law is made up of two things:
1. Legislation: Acts passed by the federal parliament/government (which affect the whole country) and the provincial/state legislatures (which affect the province/state). Municipal governments create by-laws which are law but only enforceable in that jurisdiction (municipality/city). The federal government and provincial/state governments split jurisdiction on what kind of things they can pass laws about. Municipal governments are created by the province and can only pass laws about very limited things (ex: not criminal matters)

2. Case law: These are prior judgements made by judges in cases. When a judge decides a case, they create a precedent which can/has to be followed (depending on the level of the court and a bunch of other things). Judges hence make law. They also interpret legislation, deciding what it means, how to apply it, and whether it is constitutional or now (ie valid or not).
-Also, in Quebec, and in Louisiana in the US, there is something called the Civil law, which is different

There are also other sources of the law, such as international treaties, and constitutions

So legislation and law aren't different things. Legislation is part of what makes up the law. And legislation is the source of law (not the other way around). "Law" generally refers to a bill that has been passed by the legislature and has been "signed into law" by the President or the Governor; "legislation" is a general term for proposed bills and drafts that are in the process of being considered by the legislature.

"Unlawful" law is an oxymoron. Law is by definition lawful.

So my point still stands: Currently lawful action can surely be outlawed later, government laws can change. I am really suspecting you are trolling now. At least learn the basic established terms of what you are arguing about.

This is why the courts have judicial review, and why an accused as the right to a jury of their peers, both judges and juries having the lawful authority to strike down unlawful legislation.

Unconstitutional legislation (or law), not unlawful. Law passed by legislative body is by definition lawful.

en.wikipedia.org...

Legislation (or "statutory law") is law which has been promulgated (or "enacted") by a legislature or other governing body, or the process of making it. (Another source of law is judge-made law or case law.) Before an item of legislation becomes law it may be known as a bill, and may be broadly referred to as "legislation" while it remains under consideration to distinguish it from other business. Legislation can have many purposes: to regulate, to authorize, to proscribe, to provide (funds), to sanction, to grant, to declare or to restrict.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You most assuredly are excusing this unlawful behavior and then pretending that you don't, and this post is yet another example of you doing so.

I am really getting tired of your strawmans. You know you dont have a point againt what I am saying, so you invent your strawmans, made-up terms and semantic arguments to pretend you have a point. Thats intellectually dishonest.

You began this last post of yours declaring that governments have the authority to "outlaw" what is lawful.

Yes they have, obviously. Laws can be changed. Are you now denying that laws can be changed by the government?

At this point, it is way beyond laughable your attempt at framing my arguments as logical fallacies, and the expression: "thieves always lock their doors" comes to mind. A thief assumes everyone else is a thief and the reliant upon logical fallacies, such as pretending you are really against "outlawing" lawful actions while you argue that governments get to do this anyway, always assume everyone else argues fallaciously.

Yes I certainly agree the government should have a way to outlaw currently lawful actions (and make currently illegal actions legal). Making and changing laws is the whole point of the legislative branch of the government!

That does not mean I agree or have to personally agree with any specific law passed (note: implying so is an example of your numerous logical fallacies - its a non-sequitur and strawman. So dont preted you dont use them, when there is one even in this very paragraph I am replying to.).

reply to post by doomedtoday


employers would either be raising the wages they pay out, or losing their employees....
there is still lots of open land out there, and I kind of think that before a worker is gonna sit and watch his family starve out in the cold, he will settle on some open land (who cares about property rights when one is starving!!) and well, he'll let the land provide for him!!! or he will just take what he needs in the cities, because well, who cares about property rights when they are starving!!

welfare is just the bandaide that they slapped onto society, it's not the problem, or the cause of the crappy economic situation we are in now!!! the poor don't consume that much, so well, can't blame them for the trade imbalance. they don't speculate on the housing market or trade in the deravatives market, or decide to take the nation to war upon war. so you can't really blame that on them. they weren't the ones that decided that their jobs should be shipped off to third world countries for cheaper labor costs or the right to throw their toxic garbage anywhere they wanted! they aren't the problem, they are the symptom a alot of problems that exist in our society!!

and these problems have been festering in our society since the 70's!

even if they did drop welfare, there is no way that we could cut taxes now!! we owe too many people too much money, not so much because of welfare but rather because the wall street gamblers lost their bets, there's a ton of bogus securities scattered across the globe that are not worthless, and since fraud was prevalent in every aspect of their creation, well, they will all come flocking back to their originators, who will have to buy them back...
and of course, our gov't can't stand to see their rich buddies fail, so they are having the taxpayers foot the bill!! there is no way that taxes will go down, at least not for us common folk!

if mommy and daddy have had their iras raided to the point that they have been, their savings diministed by inflation as much as it has, and their social security and medicare taken from them, well, think about this...
are you willing to sit by and watch mommy and daddy starve be homeless?? or are you gonna do everything in your power to help them out?? that's right!! they want you to let them off the hook on that one, and take care of mommy and daddy, along with your own family, the rest of their lives, so they can have bigger mansions!! more vacations to exotic lands, private jets, and of course be able to buy more power in washington and the state capitals!!!

at least for me, there is a clear line drawn in the sand!! if I can't afford the food I need, or a roof over my head, well, you can forget about me working! that will be the time that I either head for that open land, (since if a person is hungry enough or depsarate enough, well who cares about personal property!!) and I will take my chances with mother nature!! I would rather die free than work as a slave and be miserable!!

each person has to decide this on their own though, so well, good luck to yas!!

our society doesn't need an end to welfare, it needs a complete overhaul, of our economy, the way our cities are laid out, of the way our economy functions ( or doesn't function), but more importantly, how we think and interact with each other...

a society where half the people can't even see enough value in so many of the workers who they are counting on to do their jobs to be concerned about them having their needs met, ain't gonna be "charitable" to the strangers that they get absolutely nothing from!

if you are operating a business, not pocketing the bulk of the profits instead of ensuring your employees have their needs met, then you have no business complaining about the welfare state!! you are a major part of the problem!

reply to post by antonia


I foolishly posted my opinion about the invention and testing of the Self Driving Car without linking to the article and reading it first. I'm pro invention and ignorantly assumed a private business and its investors took a bold step forward in the way of travel.
After reading the article, I made the decision to post when I'm not multi-tasking. Can fools learn from their bad decisions... I hope I do.
I would like to correct and re position if I may.
As to the autonomous, from the way I understood the article, it sounds like the European people will be and are on the hook in paying for the boys toys.
It looks like the SARTRE (Safe Road Trains for the Enviroment) and Greencarcongress, an advocacy group for sustainable mobility aka Sheep Herders aka Grand Illusionists, are hard at work.
If this project is funded from taxing the people then its a beautiful example of "The Road to Welfare for Idiots".
If the people aren't funding it, I'd be surprised...and happy.

Welfare is an out of control machine that encourages deception and dependency. Its blinding effect on the dependents who shouldn't be dependent are frightening. If anyone in the private sector conducted business like the welfare machine does, they would be incarcerated for many years.
The machine is drowning and its going to take everyone with it.

reply to post by dawnstar


I don't know what you're doing here. Agreeing with me or the opposite? I like your opinion though.
I don't even give two poops about mommy and daddy anyway, be they gubment, big biz, or my actual mother and father, none of them ever gave a crap about me, why should I care about them?
Unfortunately, while you would not be willing to work for those low wages there ar far too many who would be.

reply to post by neo96



I just read about that today,

New York City has banned all food donations to government-run homeless shelters because the bureaucrats there are concerned that the donated food will not be "nutritious" enough.

Not nutritious enough, vs starvation.

hmmmm, put down the cell phones I swear it's the cell phones.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by sweetliberty

 

but progress creates many more jobs than it destroys.

I dont think so. Automatisation replaces human work. Sure, there are some more jobs created, but its generally far less than what has been replaced. The net effect is important.
Progress also increases barriers to entry, since it generally replaces unqualified work with jobs requiring higher education and higher initial investments.

Thats why job market situation in the 21st century is simply not comparable to the situation in the 19th century libertarians tend to romanticise. And it will only get "worse" with increasing progress.

For some reason the "it will only get worse" seems to have a familiar ring to it. Oh, isn't that what they said said about Rock n Roll, video games, computers ect...
I remember watching a YouTube video on Milton Friedman. It was interesting to learn about how many people it took to make a pencil.
I see the public sector jobs increasing greatly. I'm sure the unions see that too.
Edit to add
The green car/train industry will keep as many jobs as possible in the family. I think it has more to do with who you know than what you know.

reply to post by Beanskinner


I haven't come across one person here on ATS or in person who would want "tens of millions", or even one person to go hungry, let alone starve to death.
Do you say things like that out of fear? I ask because that's extreme in itself.

In my opinion, the federal government shouldn't be in our Educational system. That should be left to the States. No student loans either. Sure the military could cut quite a lot of expenses and still be the best in the world.
If the over reaching federal government backed away from the welfare system, leaving it to the States and local communites and the State obligated itself to helping those who aren't severely disabled or elderly, to the minimum essentials such as food, clothing, shelter, health department, and daycare for a specific period of time, no less no more, then we could actually sustain the welfare costs without going broke.
Anything else beyond the essentials is up to each individual to obtain through their own resources and/or charity.
I'm curious to what you. think about that?

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by neo96

 

I just read about that today,

New York City has banned all food donations to government-run homeless shelters because the bureaucrats there are concerned that the donated food will not be "nutritious" enough.

Not nutritious enough, vs starvation.

hmmmm, put down the cell phones I swear it's the cell phones.

Now this is a respectable position which I certainly agree with. Donations should be allowed after a reasonable check for safety is completed. Both donations and welfare are the solution during these difficult times.

BUT most right wingers go overboard and say DOWN with welfare alltogether which proves agenda driven ideology. They should instead focus on reform, just like left wingers want to reform the military and business.

You can't be one sided and expect to be credible at the same time. Just does not work!

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

I haven't come across one person here on ATS or in person who would want "tens of millions", or even one person to go hungry, let alone starve to death.
Do you say things like that out of fear? I ask because that's extreme in itself.

What do you think will happen if and when state welfare gets banned? Yes many millions could die from starvation or malnutrition especially in this economic climate. Business and government created the problems and they have a big obligation to fix things.

People who hoarde millions/billions and who take advantage of every possible IRS loophole cannot be trusted to donate enough to sustain society even with the bare needs. They should quite whinning like small children and pay their 33% or whatever the going rate is. If I was rich(and even if I earned every penny of it, which most do not do) I would gladely pay my share to make peace with the lord....at least a little bit!

In my opinion, the federal government shouldn't be in our Educational system. That should be left to the States. No student loans either. Sure the military could cut quite a lot of expenses and still be the best in the world.
If the over reaching federal government backed away from the welfare system, leaving it to the States and local communites and the State obligated itself to helping those who aren't severely disabled or elderly, to the minimum essentials such as food, clothing, shelter, health department, and daycare for a specific period of time, no less no more, then we could actually sustain the welfare costs without going broke.
Anything else beyond the essentials is up to each individual to obtain through their own resources and/or charity.
I'm curious to what you. think about that?

Education is primarily a township affair, welfare is a state affair, ss/medicare-medicaid are national affairs. disability and unemployment are state affairs. There is nothing wrong with the current system other than too many wars, rich people taking advantage of loopholes, welfare corruption, big businees offshoring and automation.

Yes big problems indeed but you are looking in the wrong direction and as JPZ accussed me earlier, the doctor is misdiagnosing the disease which is worst than the disease itself. See two can play the same game!

reply to post by Maslo

What is "unlawful law"? Thats an obvious oxymoron. Laws are laws.

That is precisely right, but you are the one insisting that governments can enact legislation outlawing a right, and as such that would be unlawful legislation. You are the one insisting that rights are "social constructs" and that government "makes" law. Well this may come as a shock to you sport, but in the United States there Constitutions in place prohibiting the abrogation and derogation of rights, and yet legislatures regularly legislate doing just that, trampling over rights, and then judges strike the legislation down, because it is unlawful. In your limited world view, apparently legislatures enact legislation and "made" law, but then judges unmade this so called "law". It's law, wait no it isn't, wait its law again, oh nope it isn't.

Rights are not a law. Rights are rights and law is a law.

This is how bad you're getting. If we are to grant you that governments "make" law then it follows that the Constitution that comes with a Bill of Rights and is declared as the Supreme Law of the Land, necessarily "makes" the enumerated, and of course given the Ninth Amendment, all unenumerated rights law! It would be a good idea when arguing law that you actually know what you are talking about.

There is, of course, no reason to grant you your argument, since even the Supreme Law of the Land for the United States is prescient enough to use express language prohibiting the abrogation and derogation of rights, not granting them, and of course, that pesky Ninth Amendment makes perfectly clear that are rights that have not been listed that are also prohibited from being trampled upon.

Laws are made by the government. Its ridiculous to deny this fact. I am more and more convinced that you are trolling, and not interested in rational discussion. en.wikipedia.org...

First of all, I am getting sick and tired of you accusing me of trolling in my own thread, and particularly since you waited to post in this thread when you felt you could pounce upon [omissions of citations] when I stupidly honored doomedtoday's lame request that I do not make citations. That was clearly trolling, so quit projecting and just keep making your ridiculous arguments. I suppose you would also argue that Isaac Newton "made" gravity and forced the planets to move in a certain way too.

Appealing to authority is one thing, naming Wikipedia as that "authority" is an entirely different matter. Since you want to play the appealing to authority game, then let's play!

What is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

~Frederic Bastiat~