PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.
Why?
Moderator: Community Team
PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.
Why?
PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.
Why?
Because they are the people needing protection. Not protected, society as a whole suffers.
It used to be thought perfectly OK to just let poor people simmer in slums, that it was even a kind of "weeding out" process whereby the better types emerged. Those who got diseases, particularly things like Typhoid were somehow "dirty" or "shameful". We now know better. We know that not treating diseases in slums means they spread into the wider population. AND, in particular we know that if we don't offer a good education to all kids, then our society has to rely upon outsiders for its technology and advancement... much as is beginning to happen today, here, particularly in the computer fields.
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.
Why?
Because they are the people needing protection. Not protected, society as a whole suffers.
It used to be thought perfectly OK to just let poor people simmer in slums, that it was even a kind of "weeding out" process whereby the better types emerged. Those who got diseases, particularly things like Typhoid were somehow "dirty" or "shameful". We now know better. We know that not treating diseases in slums means they spread into the wider population. AND, in particular we know that if we don't offer a good education to all kids, then our society has to rely upon outsiders for its technology and advancement... much as is beginning to happen today, here, particularly in the computer fields.
You didn't answer the question. Why is it the government's job to protect the bottom or the weak?
And once you answer that question, the next question is whether you think the government has done a good job, a bad job, or an average job protecting the bottom or the weak?
PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.
Why?
Because they are the people needing protection. Not protected, society as a whole suffers.
It used to be thought perfectly OK to just let poor people simmer in slums, that it was even a kind of "weeding out" process whereby the better types emerged. Those who got diseases, particularly things like Typhoid were somehow "dirty" or "shameful". We now know better. We know that not treating diseases in slums means they spread into the wider population. AND, in particular we know that if we don't offer a good education to all kids, then our society has to rely upon outsiders for its technology and advancement... much as is beginning to happen today, here, particularly in the computer fields.
You didn't answer the question. Why is it the government's job to protect the bottom or the weak?
And once you answer that question, the next question is whether you think the government has done a good job, a bad job, or an average job protecting the bottom or the weak?
Yes, I did.. but admitting that would require you think about your position a bit more.
Sorry, not in the mood to play the attorney game today. Either answer or don't.
The answer IS because they NEED protection and that is part of the purpose of those in charge. When they are not protected, we all are harmed.
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.
Why?
Because they are the people needing protection. Not protected, society as a whole suffers.
It used to be thought perfectly OK to just let poor people simmer in slums, that it was even a kind of "weeding out" process whereby the better types emerged. Those who got diseases, particularly things like Typhoid were somehow "dirty" or "shameful". We now know better. We know that not treating diseases in slums means they spread into the wider population. AND, in particular we know that if we don't offer a good education to all kids, then our society has to rely upon outsiders for its technology and advancement... much as is beginning to happen today, here, particularly in the computer fields.
You didn't answer the question. Why is it the government's job to protect the bottom or the weak?
And once you answer that question, the next question is whether you think the government has done a good job, a bad job, or an average job protecting the bottom or the weak?
Yes, I did.. but admitting that would require you think about your position a bit more.
Sorry, not in the mood to play the attorney game today. Either answer or don't.
The answer IS because they NEED protection and that is part of the purpose of those in charge. When they are not protected, we all are harmed.
Answering the question would actually require YOU to think about YOUR position more. Wringing your hands doesn't answer the question.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
One more time... because if they are not protected, we are all harmed and the government is the entity ultimately responsible.
If that is not good enough, then try some reading on the basis for governments. Its a pretty well-discussed issue.
The trouble you are having is that you just don't agree, but want to pretend it is a failure on my part to address your point, rather than a fundamental disagreement.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.
tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak.
I don't see that as an enumerated power in the Constitution. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if Jefferson were alive today, the thought that the Government should be involved in "charity" would have him fly into a rage about some "wall of separation of church and state."
Again, a government's job is to ensure "inalienable rights" not "protect the bottom."
stahrgazer wrote:There are those who'd argue that the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" equate to "protect the bottom."
stahrgazer wrote:You must also realize that things like civil rights and equal rights legislation appear to grant gov't power to "protect the bottom."
stahrgazer wrote:In addition, labor laws were inherently designed to "protect the bottom."
stahrgazer wrote:Even the first minimum wage laws were designed to "protect the bottom."
Forty years ago, the politicians who pushed for the increased minimum wage did not hide their motives. Nor, in an era of state-sanctioned segregation, did they feel the need to hide their knowledge of who the intended victims of minimum-wage legislation would be. In a 1957 Senate hearing, minimum-wage advocate Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who just four years later would be President of the United States, stated,Of course, having on the market a rather large source of cheap labor depresses wages outside of that group, too ā the wages of the white worker who has to compete. And when an employer can substitute a colored worker at a lower wage ā and there are, as you pointed out, these hundreds of thousands looking for decent work ā it affects the whole wage structure of an area, doesnāt it?
tzor wrote:stahrgazer wrote:There are those who'd argue that the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" equate to "protect the bottom."
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are right. The whole notion of "inalienable rights" are that you possess these "rights" and they can neither be given to you (because you already have them) nor taken away.
Governments "secure" these rights, but securing a right does not equate to protecting the bottom. Indeed "all men" have these rights and all men are entitled to be secure in these rights. Therefore government must secure these rights for everyone.
Night Strike wrote:tzor wrote:stahrgazer wrote:There are those who'd argue that the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" equate to "protect the bottom."
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are right. The whole notion of "inalienable rights" are that you possess these "rights" and they can neither be given to you (because you already have them) nor taken away.
Governments "secure" these rights, but securing a right does not equate to protecting the bottom. Indeed "all men" have these rights and all men are entitled to be secure in these rights. Therefore government must secure these rights for everyone.
Of course, a paycheck isn't a right, muchless a paycheck of a defined minimum value.
tzor wrote:Governments "secure" these rights, but securing a right does not equate to protecting the bottom. Indeed "all men" have these rights and all men are entitled to be secure in these rights. Therefore government must secure these rights for everyone.
PLAYER57832 wrote:It is if you are working. The alternative is called "slavery".
thegreekdog wrote:Inalienable rights is not in the Constitution.
thegreekdog wrote:(anyway, it was in the Declaration of Indepenence as unalienable rights)
tzor wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Inalienable rights is not in the Constitution.
Yes, and?
The law of gravity is not in the constitution either.
Original purpose of the Constitution was to enumerate the powers of the Federal Government; nothing more and nothing less.
Original purpose of the Bill of Rights was to add a belt and suspenders to that notion. It was opposed by some because the specifying of some rights assumed that anything not covered was fair game.
Since no branch of the Federal Government has the power to alter any inalienable right, or to contradict any inalienable right, according to the 10th amendment, the power is passed to the states or the people.
Thus under the constitution, the states secure inalienable rights, therefore there is no need for the federal government to duplicate that effort.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Night Strike wrote:tzor wrote:stahrgazer wrote:There are those who'd argue that the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" equate to "protect the bottom."
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are right. The whole notion of "inalienable rights" are that you possess these "rights" and they can neither be given to you (because you already have them) nor taken away.
Governments "secure" these rights, but securing a right does not equate to protecting the bottom. Indeed "all men" have these rights and all men are entitled to be secure in these rights. Therefore government must secure these rights for everyone.
Of course, a paycheck isn't a right, muchless a paycheck of a defined minimum value.
It is if you are working. The alternative is called "slavery".
tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:It is if you are working. The alternative is called "slavery".
Close, but close only works for horse shoes, hand grenades and nuclear weapons.
Slavery is when you are forced to work. Ironically, you can be compensated. Washington (that odd southerner, he actually made a profit) actually "paid" his slaves when farm conditions forced them to work on Sunday. Never the less, they were still "slaves." They had to work, paid or not.
If you work for someone who doesn't pay you; you have the right not to work for that someone. Therefore it is not slavery.
If you work for someone on an agreed rate and that person doesn't pay that agreed rate, that is a violation of contract law. Even libertarians strongly believe in the role of government to arbitrate contract law disputes.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:There is no gaurantee that anyone in business will succeed. For all this talk of the "free market" by NS, etc, that part seems to get missed. It is not the government's obligation to ensure businesses make a profit, it is the government's job to protect the people at the very bottom who lack the power to protect themselves against those more than willing to take advantage.
But it's bad for the government when they're actively working against businesses being successful and profitable because if businesses aren't profitable, the government doesn't get as much money (although they do enact junk fees and registrations on every action). And the government's role of protecting people means they get to keep businesses from harming/killing their workers or violating contracts, it doesn't say that the government gets to dictate the terms of those contracts.
BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Night Strike wrote:tzor wrote:stahrgazer wrote:There are those who'd argue that the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" equate to "protect the bottom."
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are right. The whole notion of "inalienable rights" are that you possess these "rights" and they can neither be given to you (because you already have them) nor taken away.
Governments "secure" these rights, but securing a right does not equate to protecting the bottom. Indeed "all men" have these rights and all men are entitled to be secure in these rights. Therefore government must secure these rights for everyone.
Of course, a paycheck isn't a right, muchless a paycheck of a defined minimum value.
It is if you are working. The alternative is called "slavery".
Nah, it's called "unemployment."
The Bison King wrote:I sort of see raising the minimum wage as the king of meaningless gestures. Mcdonalds pays it's employees minimum and a hamburger is $1. If they raise minimum wage the company's just gonna start charging $1.50 for a hamburger to make up the cost. As far as "bang for your buck" is concerned the people at the bottom will be making the same amount of money. All i does is screw over people like me who hover above minimum only to have it keep coming up to meet me. It also decreases the value of your savings if it drives up the prices of everyday goods.
It seems like a nice gesture but in my life the raising of minimum wage has never been beneficial. At least that's how I see it.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users