Sob Story = Yet More Theft From Citizens

[HDPM]

To quote a really insensitive guy I heard at a funeral (in a church near old ladies of course) say to his wife when she started to cry, "Quit yer whelping up goddammit." Heres the link web page (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N08366746.htm)

OK, I am sorry the guy's kid offed himself. It bugs me when young people kill themselves. Happens. it's sad. I don't want my money stolen to pay to see if maybe they won't stick a gauge in their mouth however. It is simply not an appropriate way to make policy. Personal boo hoo anecdotes should be banned from consideration. But all these senators rallied around and now taxnspend domenici is making threats to senators stalling the theft.

Same thing happened in my state this year. Some guy had a non smoker son die of lung cancer at age 28. Guess what? That means it was some genetic quirk or something. Bad luck/genes whatever. Nope, second hand smoke musta killed my precious, so we will take away property rights with a useless ban. I don't get how these people shamelessly promote big government because of their personal tragedy. It needs to stop. And people in the legislature need the guts to stand up and call it a load of crap no matter how many boo hoos are spewed.

[andyfox]

"More than 30,000 Americans kill themselves each year and suicide is the third-leading cause of death for people aged 10-24."

Sixty million doesn't seem like much to see if we can help save some American lives. After all, we're spending a billion a day in Iraq. And I don't care much about those people. Then again, if we banned guns, we could probably lower that suicide rate. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I don't understand, anyway, how the money is being stolen from you. We agree to have a government. A representative government. Our elected representatives decide how to run the country. Being spent unwisely, in many cases, no doubt. But stolen? Please explain.

Regards,
Andy

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
After all, we're spending a billion a day in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon Andy, you are starting to sound a lot like an unsuccessful presidential candidate there.

Jimbo

[andyfox]

Yeah, some irrelevant hyperbole. Guilty as charged.

I'm right about Curly though.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm right about Curly though.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL

OK, I acquiesce, Curly is the man.

Jimbo

[HDPM]

It is theft because it is not a legitimate function of government. My money is taken by force to pay for something that the government has no justification to do. So it is theft. Sure it is legal theft, but it is immoral. The fact that a bunch of people vote for idiots who vote to do it does not make it right. Legal yes. But not right. 60 million is the not most expensive governemnt program, but if they spent 16 cents on the program it is too much. It is bad enough they used the senate facilities to have a group hug. My taxes shouldn't be used to shelter sob sister thieves from rain or heat while they do a boo hoo sensitivity retreat.

How's that for fiscal restraint. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[andyfox]

"It is theft because it is not a legitimate function of government."

-The constitution is vague enough, as it's framers intended it to be, to make almost anything the legitimate function of government.

"So it is theft. Sure it is legal theft, but it is immoral."

-There's no such thing as legal theft. Isn't it immoral to let 30,000 people die without lifting a finger?

"The fact that a bunch of people vote for idiots who vote to do it does not make it right. Legal yes. But not right.

-OK, but I might think it's right. We all have different definitions of right. And it's not a bunch of people. It was enough to elect the representatives.

"My taxes shouldn't be used to shelter sob sister thieves from rain or heat while they do a boo hoo sensitivity retreat."

True, but let's cut the guy a break here. I mean, Senator Byrd rants and raves and takes four hours to say something you or I could say in twelve seconds. The man's son killed himself. There are a lot more outrageous things they do to waste our money (such as telling us we need to go into Iraq lest we see a mushroom cloud here in the U.S. [hope Jimbo doesn't read this far down /images/graemlins/wink.gif]).

[MMMMMM]

All those $60 millions add up. If you want to donate to a suicide prevention fund, why not do it on your own?

Too bad we don't have people in government like we had during the colonial days--about all we have now is socialists, panderers and opportunists. Who today in government truly has character? Who believes that each individual should be free--and free to be responsible for his own destiny?

What most elected officials today believe is that money you earn is theirs to spend--not yours to do with as you think best--and if they don't take it all away from you they are doing you a great favor indeed. The Revolutionary war was fought over what was surely less oppressive taxation than what we have today. People in the USA have to work what?--5 months?--on average each year before they start making any money for themselves. What a travesty. What a waste of labor, human capital, and investment opportunities--and what a waste of time that could be used for "ploughing other pastures".

The purpose of United States government has been subverted by 20th century thinking--and NOT for the better.

The reported suicide is sad indeed. So are many tragedies. Is it really the business of the federal government to prevent each individual tragedy?

God, just make people leave everyone else alone and things will be so much better. Thoreau was right: the do-gooders are a force greatly to be feared.

Keep the government out of 90% of what it is involved in today.

If you want to do something for the "good of society", donate your money or your time to a good cause--but don't try to force others to do likewise.

That's what I believe.

[craig r]

Thoreau was right: the do-gooders are a force greatly to be feared

Uh-Oh, MMMMMM is siding with a person who is considered to be one of the first american anarchists. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

The real problem is that constitutional amendment that gave us income taxes. It has taken power from the states and concentrated it in the hands of the 535 in congress. I dont want the monies of the New York Citizen going to build a road in Montana where no one needs a road anyway.

Of course to hear MMMMMM carping about people who are do-gooders after his heartfelt do-gooding attitude (and willingness to send fellow Americans to die in droves) towards the Iraqi population (hey pal do you now know where Iraq is on the map?) is pretty funny.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif the simple truth is that this is money well spent; that is; if you feel society has an obligation to help afflicted citizens. depression and suicide are extremely expensive for society; and these are good investments; assuming they are well run depression screens and suicide prevention programs...

just remember; it is ok , by hdpm, to steal a person's right to play golf with whom he wants; and it's super by andy to steal a person's right to shop at the store he chooses;

so, why, oh why, in a christian society (where we are our brother's keeper) ' it it incorrect to show compassion for those afflicted??

let freedom ring..

gl /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Isn't it immoral to let 30,000 people die without lifting a finger?

Now hold on. We're talking about suicide here. That's an individual tragedy. There's a whole lot of complexity surrounding the reasons why individuals commit suicide. I contend it's ultimately the right of an individual to end his own life. But that's not the point.

Not every tragic circumstance warrants a response from the collective. This is the flaw in the big-government proposition, the concept that "something bad happened, why can't the government fix it?"

Perhaps the crux of the libertarian argument shouldn't be focused on what the government should and shouldn't be allowed to do, but rather on what the government is and is not *capable* of doing.

[HDPM]

"if you feel society has an obligation to help afflicted citizens"


I don't of course. Actually, I don't THINK "society" has such an obligation. To the extent those beliefs are out there, I agree they are caused more by feelings than thought.

Mental health is certainly a problem and costs many individuals a lot. That does not mean the government should do much about it.

And no, I didn't say that I would take away people's right to discriminate at private clubs. I just wouldn't take away others' rights to say it is stupid and not participate in the folly. On the Augusta issue, I believe, IIRC, that I said the PGA Tour should take the Masters off it's approved tournament list and not count the winnings as official. But the PGA Tour is a private organization made up of members who are independent contractors. They have a non-discrimination policy. They have made money by not discriminating. In order to avoid being hypocrits, I think they should not help a group of people who discriminate make money. Nowhere did I say any governmental action was appropriate on the whole Augusta affair. But I am not going to search the archives to find out what I said for sure. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[HDPM]

"Isn't it immoral to let 30,000 people die without lifting a finger?"

No. Unless you are the one that gave them the mental illness.

"Lifting a finger" also does not include sending armed government agents to my house to take me by force if I don't pay. You do not have the moral right to do that to force me to pay for suicide prevention no maater how many people vote for it, no matter what the law or constitution says, no matter whatever. I pay because I follow the law and don't want to go to prison. I am not a tax protester all you Ashcroft people monitoring. I suffer the immoral system, but it is immoral.

You may think it is right, but you are on the side that resorts to force. I would let people give to whatever charity they chose with no force used. If the mental health coalition couldn't raise enough money, then I guess not enough people agreed with your conception of how their money should be spent.

[andyfox]

Good arguments. But we won't know if the government is capable of doing anything here or not until they try. Three thousand people died, tragically, brutally murdered, on 9/11. Ten times as many suicide victims die each and every year I realize they did not choose this fate, they are victims of themselves, so their situation is different than the suicides. Shouldn't government be about making our lives better?

[andyfox]

Different people can have different senses of morality. If you saw someone on a ledge and didn't attempt to talk them down, would you have acted immorally? Isn't letting the mentally ill kill themselves without trying to help them is the same thing.

It seems you favor anarchy. One definition of government is that it has the legal patent, as it were, on force. Yes, we are forced to pay our taxes. And the government uses our tax money for things you or I may not like. I happen to agree with the spending on trying to help the mentally ill and disagree with the war in Iraq; you may feel the opposite. So we do what we can or choose to in order to get lawmakers who agree with our particular positions.

Charities exist now, yet thirty thousand people killed themselves.

[Utah]

I find your remarks both highly insensitive and illogical.

I am a huge proponent of less spending. I dont know the specfics of the the bill so I cant comment whether its a good bill or not.

However, the government sure as hell has a responsibility to address the third leading cause of death of our children.

[andyfox]

While you're searching, please see if I said a person shouldn't be able to shop where they want to. Thanks in advance. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Shouldn't government be about making our lives better?

No, it shouldn't. And I don't mean that group efforts to improve our lot in life are wrong. I prefer private solutions. The reason is simple. Whose definition of "good life" are we to use? I'm sure there exists a large number of citizens who believe that making all gambling illegal everywhere in the US would constitute making our lives better.

I do not believe in using the government's power to tax as a tool of social engineering.

Look at it this way. Think of the politician or lobbying group you most disagree with. Then realize that when you say "Shouldn't government be about making our lives better?" you are actively saying it is right for *that* group to decide what makes your life better.

The purpose of government should be to provide a justice system, national defense, police and fire protection, and maybe even some level of infrastructure. After that, the best place for government is to stay out of the way of human interraction.

[andyfox]

Whose definition of justice, defense, protection and infrastructure do we use?

[MMMMMM]

"The real problem is that constitutional amendment that gave us income taxes. It has taken power from the states and concentrated it in the hands of the 535 in congress. I dont want the monies of the New York Citizen going to build a road in Montana where no one needs a road anyway."

A very significant part of the problem, anyway. Check out www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org) if you haven't already.

"Of course to hear MMMMMM carping about people who are do-gooders after his heartfelt do-gooding attitude (and willingness to send fellow Americans to die in droves) towards the Iraqi population (hey pal do you now know where Iraq is on the map?) is pretty funny."

Once the scale of atrocities and slaughter reaches a certain level I think do-gooding can be rightly considered in battling tyranny. For smaller things, though, I would rather not see so much of it.

[MMMMMM]

The US Constitution's. Literally.

[MMMMMM]

So how many of those 30,000 do you think wouldn't have killed themselves if we spent 60 million on it?

Let the indicidual states institute such programs if the voters wish. It should not be done on a federal level or there becomes no way to opt out of it for those who think it is money inefficiently or mistakenly spent.

[HDPM]

They are not "our children" They are not my children. Nor yours. Unless you have a child who is affected. Then you have a responsibility. It doesn't take a village to raise a child and you don't have any responsibility to affirmatively help any child but your own.

I do favor laws that protect children from force or violence or neglect by their parents. I think the government can take children away from abusive parents and tax money can be spent on that. Children do merit some extra protection because both by reality and law they are not fully grown etc...

[andyfox]

Well, we've been over this before and, as you know, I disagree. Where does, for example, the U.S. Constitution talk, literally, about infrastructure? How is "equal protection under the law" something that can be construed literally?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
It should not be done on a federal level or there becomes no way to opt out of it for those who think it is money inefficiently or mistakenly spent

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that change by moving it to the state level?

[elwoodblues]

Article 1 § 8 clause 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general welfare of the United States..."

"General welfare" is a vague term and this type of spending could arguably come under it.

[MMMMMM]

Because some states will, some won't; choose your state then;-)

[elwoodblues]

Some countries will, some won't; choose your country.

When it is done at the state level people say do it at the county. At the county, do it at the city.

[MMMMMM]

"Where does, for example, the U.S. Constitution talk, literally, about infrastructure?"

It doesn't, as far as I am aware.

"How is "equal protection under the law" something that can be construed literally?"

I think you would have to work to NOT construe that literally.

[MMMMMM]

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general welfare of the United States..."

"General welfare" is a vague term and this type of spending could arguably come under it."

Too generally, IMO.

[MMMMMM]

So are you arguing that there is, or should be, essentially no separation between those duties which should fall to the state or the country (except for obviously state-only matters)? If it's (in the opinion of some) a good law for a state's welfare, may as well make it a law for the whole country? Don't you think many matters should just be left to the states? If not, why bother having states and state governments in the first place??? Why not just have one great big state-country? Do you see any drawbacks with that notion?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
So are you arguing that there is, or should be, essentially no separation between those duties which should fall to the state or the country

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. The Federal government's power is limited to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Many of the enumerated powers are (either intentionally or unintentionally) open to interpretation. Society will ebb and flow over time interpreting those enumerated powers narrowly or broadly. If a more narrow definition of the interstate commerce clause or the general welfare clause are desired, potential remedies are:

Amend the constitution so that it is more explicit

Persuade others (including members of Congress) that a more narrow interpretation is appropriate

Move to a different country

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif you clearly were against wal-mart having the right to open stores where they wish...

the real reason andy wants to curtail wal-mart is they are a competitor of his: while andyfox "works" part-time; then plays cards with his buddies in a gambling hall; his competitors at wal-mart are at work; actively cutting costs and saving the consumer money...

come on andy...

admit you are in the "middle-man business" that wal-mart is cutting out; and saving consumers billions...

yup

that's the truth

gl

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif the masters is NOT a part of the pga or the augusta national club...

it's just that simple:

and you know it;

but i think; as a lawyer; when you go golfing; you should have to include a minority or poor person in your foursume;


why??

well; you have a public licenxene in the state; therefore ; you should be obligated to get to know all citizens; as you are a servent of the court...

lol

gl

let freedom ring.....

/images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif let's look at a human as a capital good:

as education and training increase; then the worth to society; and wages; lol; go up;

if that valuable (and tax-paying) capital improvement is destroyed..(aka suicide); then society; and the state coffers are hurt;

but by reasonable intervention; anf treatment; this valuable machinery remains from the slag heap; pays above average taxes; and contributes immensely to society in many ways...

you do not have to have a concern about being good when considering the efficacy of suicide prevention:

it is just plane cost-effective and damn good investment return..

that's the truth

gl

/images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[HDPM]

I know hte masters is not a part of the pga tour. I also know that augusta national has created a separate entity called the masters tournament, er, tooonamint per hootie, but the masters tournament makes money for augusta national. We both know it. Dues are unbelievably cheap there for such an exclusive and high maintenance club. That tournament revenue helps the club. We both know that.

Now, I have made it clear that I won't join a club that discriminates. When I joined my current club I made sure to specifically ask if there were any discriminatory policies. There are none. As a private citizen I certainly have the right to associate with anybody I choose, and I have chosen to associate with people who don't enact discriminatory policies. I am nobody's servant however, and have no obligation to invite people into my foursome. They don't have to at augusta either. But I wouldn't play there even if given the opportunity (admittedly unlikely).

As to prior scandals, which you sort of implicate in your post, where elected officials or judges are called on the carpet for belonging to groups that discriminate - well that is different. Judicial ethics prohibit belonging to groups that discriminate, and I think that is fine. (Although some judges are going to go nuts when they are called on the carpet in liberal areas that start going after boy scout associations.) This is different htough. Why would we want elected officials who discriminate on the basis of race or gender? The fact they may have a right to do so does not mean they have a right to a given job or the right to be free from criticism over their choices.

P.S. I pretty much hate the people at my club FWIW and might just go back to proletariat public golf for Andy. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[HDPM]

I think we should look at human beings as human beings, not as capital goods.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif and hd; if you looked at human beings as a valuable resource; it would be impossible for you to refuse care to depressed/suicidal souls..

yup

but you did state masters was a part of the pga..

gl'' /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif you must be happier than a pig in sh+t; given the senator from n. carolina..(and a native of south carolina)..is on the demo ticket...this maggot sucking opportunistic sob is going to increase the liabilities for all of us; and make life secure for every lawyer...who of course is just helping the down-trodden....(while making mega-millions himself)..lol

a real robin hood..

lol

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif

[HDPM]

Well, if a democrat has to win, I at least want something in it for the lawyers. I want HDPW to let me retire while she ruins the country and makes big bucks. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif you are a demo hd..

it's obvious..

gl

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[HDPM]

I would not refuse them care. But I would refuse the government's right to force me to pay for it. If that leads to them not getting care, well, I guess I would refuse them care.

I actually don't mind publically funded mental health as much as some other things. Not suicide prevention for depressed people, but I know there are people who have serious mental illnesses and can't function at all. Care program feel good boondoggles for depressed people don't cut it. But I think I would cut governmental spending on all the mental health programs. I have some experience, not as much as you of course, dealing with indigent mentally ill people who are ill enough to be committed. Sad tales to be sure. I also would have more funding for facilities for the criminally insane. At least in my state people go to prison who should get a different form of lockup. Once the government decides to lock them up or commit them involuntarily, a certain level of funding is necessary to meet their obligations. That doesn't exist in my state right now. Maybe because we waste too much money on useless welfare programs and such.

[MMMMMM]

"you do not have to have a concern about being good when considering the efficacy of suicide prevention:

it is just plane cost-effective and damn good investment return..

that's the truth"


scalf,

even if your argument is true in general--and it may be--the cost-effectiveness of government programs must still be considered. Many government "programs" achieve precious little in the final analysis no matter how well-funded they might be.

If you want to go about doing something in the least efficient manner possible, hand the project over to the government.

[andyfox]

Seeing problems with Wal-mart opening up wherever they want is not the same thing as not allowing a consumer to buy something wherever he wants. I can't just open up a retail store wherever I want to. Wal-Mart tried to get around the community's rules and regulations through a ballot proposition and they lost. Democracy in action. Let freedom ring.

As far as my business goes, Wal-Mart is not cutting out the middle-man business. They buy from the biggest "middle-man" in my business (Tandy Corp.- it's a public company; they do 40% of their business with Wal-mart) and several others. Wal-Mart is saving consumers money by manufacturing in China, a subject about which I also recently posted.

I design my customers' products; I merchandise them; I package them; I ship them; I conform to their electronic date interchange requirements; I carry their credit; I give them markdown money and I take returns. I help them with pricing and sale decisions. I manage their inventory. I supply fixtures and other point-of-sale aids. While I'm playing cards with my buddies, my people, around the globe, are working hard doing all this and more. This is what we "middle men" do and why the retailers need us. They are not our competitors, and we do business with them because they are happy with the services we provide.

Yup.

That's the truth.

[HDPM]

Of course any retail store should be able to open on any land it owns. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif


More importantly, I've been meaning to ask you about a gunleather line. I think you should go into the holster business if you haven't already. If you have some products I want to know where to buy them. I'd love a nice Andy Fox carry rig for an asinine pistol. If you make up a good rig that goes with a suit, I'll buy a pistol like zeno's for it. If you don't have any products, I'd like to be a consultant and come out with some holsters you could sell. I think it would be cool to have widely distributed concealed carry rigs and stuff. We can also get Iris to advise. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[andyfox]

I'll consider it.

I've considered it.

No.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif