XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 9/6/2018 3:05 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > On 9/2/2018 10:33 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >> On 9/2/2018 10:03 AM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>> On 9/1/2018 6:35 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>> On 9/1/2018 5:59 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>>> On 9/1/2018 4:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 9/1/2018 1:09 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> {snip}   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> A couple of points that need clarifying:   
   >>>>>>>   - Government does not have authority over individuals, it has   
   >>>>>>> been delegated authority /from/ individuals.   
   >>>>>>>   - That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and   
   >>>>>>> purpose, the powers and authority of the individual.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Regarding obligations:   
   >>>>>>>   - The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and   
   >>>>>>> that is to support and sustain the execution of the authority   
   >>>>>>> that has been legally and justly delegated.  No more, no less.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the   
   >>>>>>> nation has been delegated to government.  Therefore, _every_   
   >>>>>>> individual is equally obligated to support and sustain that   
   >>>>>>> protection.  It is up to the people of that society to define   
   >>>>>>> that equal obligation (e.g. it could be that all serve in the   
   >>>>>>> armed forces for some period of time, and/or individuals are   
   >>>>>>> obligated to financially support the maintenance and execution of   
   >>>>>>> the armed forces (i.e. taxes), or ....). If an individual refuses   
   >>>>>>> their obligation, they are subject to punishment or removal from   
   >>>>>>> society.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That's one example.  Since they are few and defined, what is the   
   >>>>>> exhaustive list of obligations?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> For us, US Constitution.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So for example, Social Security taxation in order to provide for the   
   >>>> general welfare has been delegated to government and individuals are   
   >>>> obligated to pay taxes for that purpose?   
   >>>   
   >>> No, no such authority exists (i.e. forcing a person to provide for   
   >>> the welfare of their self or others), therefore it can't be delegated   
   >>> to government.  Our government, using legislative authority it   
   >>> doesn't have, created the SS welfare program.   
   >>>   
   >>> This is why I've argued with you on numerous times about the General   
   >>> Welfare clause.  It pertains to, and ONLY to the welfare of the   
   >>> nation (government), not the people.  Individuals have no authority   
   >>> over others, therefore welfare by compulsion can't be delegated and   
   >>> necessarily constricts the interpretation of the GW clause.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>> Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> We have always agreed on that.  Where we disagree is the scope of   
   >>>>>> government's delegated authority over individuals.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If an individual doesn't have authority over another, how can   
   >>>>> authority over another be delegated to government?  It can't, ergo   
   >>>>> government has no authority over individuals.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Let me rephrase.  We agree no individual has authority over another.   
   >>>> Where we disagree is the scope of what has been legally and justly   
   >>>> delegated to the government.   
   >>>   
   >>> If we agree on the former, the latter is self-evident.  Since we   
   >>> don't agree on the latter, we de facto don't agree on the former.   
   >>>   
   >>> Take your above example of SS.  You argue that it is just and   
   >>> authorized via the General Welfare clause.  In order to do so, you   
   >>> must assume that an individual DOES have authority over another (in   
   >>> that they can compel one person to provide for the welfare of another   
   >>> AND that you can compel that individual to provide for the welfare of   
   >>> their self).   
   >>   
   >> My example (Social Security) is no different than your example (the   
   >> military draft).   
   >   
   > Absolutely not.  Welfare of the nation has nothing to do with welfare of   
   > the individual.   
      
   On this point, we disagree.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)