Cesar,

I appreciate the dialogue!

You are correct that the DOI says nothing about public education or welfare; they are not basic human rights. The "creator question" is an excellent one. Continue your research on the DOI. The original draft did not include it. It was probably added by John Adams or Benjamin Franklin. After Jefferson's initial draft, it became a collaborative effort. I hate collaboration; the less talented often dilute the work of genius. And it was edited (diluted) so it could be approved by the 2nd Continental Congress... that means Jefferson's work was compromised. Aside from that, its importance is that men are free to form their own government and that the role of government is to protect the rights of all men. These rights are more important that government itself. Jefferson’s first draft included the word "property" and this is paramount, as it means that we are entitled to keep what we produce. This is the first time that individual rights became more important than preserving the country, government, or king.

The study of Western Civilization includes philosophy. Everyone needs philosophy. Aristotle was not perfect in his philosophy, but it is the starting point in a study of philosophy, so the intelligent person can develop his own philosophy and not accept someone else's lock, stock, and barrel. Why is he important? His philosophy was the mind's Declaration of Independence. His contribution is the foundations of the rational.

Objectivity: A is A. We cannot change this. Morality is a code to guide us in our actions, but it cannot change nature. We cannot change anything by wishing it were different. A moral code guides us in life's choices and actions... but it must be based on objective reality. By taking my property (money or other), you are denying me of my right to my property without my consent. This is immoral. Mankind forms social groups or governments by choice; it is not a basic requirement for survival. Aristotle and Jefferson realized the value of government and society, but insisted that such social interactions cannot abridge any person's right to his property, his freedom, his life, or his pursuit of happiness. Men must be free to trade (goods and services), but force may not be used to take away anything from any man.

Aristotle said that man must be able to exercise free choice about what he needs or wants, and this must be allowed to happen without coercion from outside forces. This is what is required to pursue happiness. Aristotle called this “living the good life,” as happiness is not a Greek word nor is there an exact translation. He also said that man must have liberty to plan his life to "live well." To live this good life, he said that we need real goods to support our quest and we have a right to the goods we produce. He also said that if an individual fails in his life, it is his own fault. He acknowledged that all of us may have bad luck, and that we all need to take advantage of the good things that happen, but none of these components of a good life are guaranteed... the individual must create them for himself (your question on health care). He also said that men form social groups voluntarily for their own purpose. He also said that others have no right to claim our help.

Regarding criminals: No man has the right to deny any of us the full use of our own property, freedom, or pursuit of happiness. And it is immoral to initiate force against another human being, whether it is physical or other. And those who violate these basic human rights must suffer the consequences. This is the purpose of government. We do not deny a criminal of his basic rights; he has chosen to give them up by initiating force against another.

Money: Money is only a means to exchanging goods and services. Money can only exist and have exchangeable value by the men who produce. Money in itself is not evil; it only is a mechanism of trade. Money is how we store the excess of our own production and wealth, and it is our property. Aristotle said that we need to produce personal wealth so we can live the good life.

To summarize, Aristotle said the purpose of man's life is to "live the good life" and it is his own responsibility to achieve it, and no one has the right to deny or take anything away from him.

Ben,

You and I may not agree totally on everything, but you sure have an excellent mind.

Jerry, Jerry...

"Promoting the general Welfare is one of the reasons for establishing the constitution."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Are you trying to re-write history?

The Preamble to the Constitution is just that, a preamble. It has no legal status nor does it grant any legislative power.

That "general welfare" clause only means that the desired outcome from the Constitution is the general welfare of the citizens of the United States. And to our founding fathers, this meant life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It is that simple.

The same clause also occurs in the body of the Constitution under taxing and spending, and it is meant to limit Congress's power to tax and spend.

For your definition of Welfare, I would refer you to Karl Marx.

"A is A". No, A seems like A to you. It seems to me that anyone who bases their philosophy on Aristotelian logic could well find the future very confusing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHG01dhnlSY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gp4dha42ZA

Edited by jephoto on 03/05/2011 15:13:35 MST.

Nick,

Yes, preamble has no legal status

Article 1, section 8 has legal status - "The congress shall have the 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..."

I agree "welfare" doesn't mean providing service to poor people

"welfare" means anything the congress, president, and supreme court decide it means

you can argue that the founding fathers meant anything you wish - religious/not religious, slaves/not slaves,...

you might think the preamble would indicate what the founding fathers thought

Karl Marx ideas haven't worked except with small groups of people - for example communes and religious groups

Karl Marx ideas have been corrupted by China and USSR

When you have to rely on calling someone a communist or a nazi it shows you've run out of arguments and you're becoming desperate : )

Jason,

You really would consider anything spouted from Wilson as having any value at all? This guy at one time or another believed or espoused just about every religion, political system, anti-poitical system, or philosophy that was ever created. The volume of paths he eschewed is only outnumbered by the number of hallucinations and peyote trips he experienced.

I would just add him to the list of American entertainers, which is his only rightful place in history. He was one very confused man.

:)

Jerry,

I am not calling anyone names, nor am I trying to win any arguments. It is just a conversation.

Fortunately I do not have to argue that the founding fathers meant anything that I wish. There are plenty of writings from most of them to allow them to speak for themselves. We all just need to take the time to read them, and to read those before them who influenced their ideas. Nothing mystical about it.

Here is another one for other people http://rushkoff.com/books/life-incorporated/

Edited by jephoto on 03/05/2011 16:13:44 MST.

n/m

Edited by jephoto on 03/05/2011 16:14:24 MST.

Nick,

What's unfortunate is that the right wingers take your ideas about reducing spending on social programs but they ignore it on spending on miltary contractors, big agriculture, or big pharma.

Similalry they take your ideas about reducing taxes for wealthy people and corporations but raise taxes on middle income people.

For example, Reagan doubled social security taxes which apply to middle income but not wealthy.

And they reduced capital gains tax from 30% to 15%. I maybe made $10,000 of capital gains on a particular year so I saved $1,500. Wealthy people save $millions. Plus, education is more expensive so I have to spend more than that $1,500 I saved.

I don't mean to be disrespectful to you or anything, it's an interesting philisophical discussion.

"Well, paying more to protect jobs that can be done cheaper/better elsewhere ain't wise either -- not in the long run. That will only make us ever less competitive. If you believe in capitalism, then you have to take the good with the bad. Tough love is what works in the long run. Insist on buying the best you can at whatever price range you set for yourself -- and let the manufacturers compete for your business.

I don't worry about losing sewing jobs to the rest of the world. My worry is the crumbling public education system. What new industries will our kids be inventing in the decades ahead? That's where the real money is."

There IS no way to compete if jobs pay 1/8th of where you live due to another government's control, as China does.

If you buy locally, you support the place where you live and they in turn have money to buy your own products and services --- and pay taxes to support the school system.

There is much less control you have over products produced elsewhere. I know where my
beef is grown and processed, what it eats.

Do you know how your silnylon is coated? Do they let the solvents evaporate into our
air?

"There IS no way to compete if jobs pay 1/8th of where you live...If you buy locally, you support the place where you live and they in turn have money to buy your own products and services --- and pay taxes to support the school system.
"

David:

I will sometimes pay higher to support a niche gear maker that I know -- or the independent cafe and travel bookstore here in my own neighborhood. And that's fine on an individual basis. But what happens when you try to expand that nationwide? And what happens if the government should step in to "provide incentives" to this Buy American campaign -- either by offering tax subsidies and/or by raising tariffs on imports? Well -- we will quickly find ourselves in a closed or semi-closed economy with a wide range of inefficient, non-competitive industries that survive only on "patriotism".

Many countries have tried the above, only to find themselves even worse off. The way to win in capitalism isn't to cuddle sickly industries -- but to nurture new growth industries! Why?

Imagine if we were to protect what's left of our textile and backpack industries. MOST ALL apparels will quickly rise to the price level of Arcteryx (made in Canada) -- $350 for a jacket - $500 for a backpack. After all the point of protection is to provide living wages to workers, correct? But how many can we afford to buy? Folks will end up buying fewer and fewer -- while prices will continue to rise higher and higher due to loss in demand. A vicious cycle.

Better that we make sure our kids do well in school and remain at the cutting edge of technology -- instead of fighting off Chinese or Cambodian weavers and gearmakers! Case in point: ALL Apple iPads and iPods and iPhones are made in China. But Apple and its shareholders are the one making a killing -- not the Chinese factories.

Edited by ben2world on 03/05/2011 17:17:17 MST.

David

Just last month I went to my first farmers market. After reading books like The Omnivores Dilemma, I had to take that first step. The experience was very full filling knowing I was getting a top notch product, supporting individual local farmers and not the big companies. I was able to ask the source directly about how my food was produced.

The grass fed beef was like no other beef I have eaten. I do not have the money to eat all local, all the time but I try to when I can.

As far as sourcing my silnylon locally not sure if its possible, guess you could try and make a MYOG backpack out of the hides of the locally sourced beef, haha not sure how well that project would turn out or how light.

Jerry,

I agree with most of this!!

Lets quit spending money on the military (unless it is to defend us from foreign invaders). If Iraq or Afghanistan want democracy then the can have their own revolution without our help. Agriculture and pharmaceuticals need to stand on their own... to include reducing the regulation that costs us tons. Hundreds of millions of dollars for each new drug introduced... even if it has been proven safe in other countries. The right wingers have their own agenda. Most do not belief in Capitalism. They believe in gaining power, obtaining favors and franchises to steal money, and forcing their religious beliefs on the rest of us.


Lets cut everyone's taxes so that we only fund the minimum needed to run a lean government. Also lets have everyone pay the same flat taxes (in dollars, not percentage).


Sorry, the rich pay the same for social security as everyone else if they have a job. If you hit the maximum income threshold everyone pays the same. If Bill Gates is still receiving a pay check from Microsoft, then he and I paid the same last year and I am not rich. Also he will probably receive the same benefits since we are close to the same age and have contributed the same during our working careers (assuming both of us earned the maximum threshold). Maximum payment is set by law. Lets not forget that we only pay 1/2 of social security. The employer contributes the other 1/2. The exception is the self employed who pay twice what we do through the self-employment tax. Yep, our favorite cottage manufacturers pay twice as much SSI as we do!! Lets shut down social security too. We can refund all the money everyone paid into it, and they can do what they want with it.

See flat tax above. Now we can eliminate capital gains and inheritance taxes too.

"Just last month I went to my first farmers market."

I need to start doing that too.

". Mankind forms social groups or governments by choice; it is not a basic requirement for survival."

We got into this one in another thread. I will disagree now, as I did then, and point out that the history of mankind since the beginning has been the history of groups. A physically weak creature like man would not long have survived as scattered individuals each acting independently. From family groups to clans to tribes to tribal confederations to nations to empires, man's history has been about groups. The idea of the individual as an autonomous entity is relatively recent in human history and, to this day, the majority of human beings live in societies that emphasize the welfare of the group over that of the individual. Some of these societies, dare I call them civilizations, have been around for several thousand years. It remains to be seen whether our model, which elevates the individual at the expense of the group, will endure even 500 years. I, personally, am not optimistic. The type of society you seem to glorify has never existed in practice, as far as I am aware, and likely never will, simply because the benefits an organized group confers in the struggle for survival will always be superior to those of individuals operating independently in their perceived self interest. This does not mean there is no room for individual freedom, but it must ultimately be subordinated to the good of the group for a society to endure.

I cringe at the thought of an America of some 300 million people from widely varying cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds trying to function coherently according to the ideas you espouse. Especially in competition with other, highly organized societies. Perhaps you could explain how we would manage that.



"happiness is not a Greek word nor is there an exact translation."

Eudaimonia seems to come fairly close. There is frequently not an exact translation between languages, but happiness is a universal human emotion, and all languages will have a word expressing it.

I do not want kids competing with the Chinese for sewing jobs, I want them competing for high tech jobs. I am perfectly happy to let someone in Asia do the sewing.


Lets talk about philosophy again, because I think David made a good point about coating silnylon. We as individuals need to make moral judgements about others... not publicly, but in our heads. If we feel someone is immoral, unethical, or any other characteristic we do not agree with, then we should not do business or associate with them. Of course lets not make our judgements base on hearsay.


Restricting trade is a bad idea, as Ben pointed out. Buying a product only based on patriotism is not smart.


I work with businessmen almost every day. You want to know what their biggest problem is? Its not taxes, regulations, or government. It is the fact they cannot find good employees. And they are willing to pay very good money to get them. Unfortunately all they can find are employees that will only work 40 hours per week, demand that every task is aligned to their rights, and will only achieve the absolute minimum required. And if they cannot achieve the absolute minimum, many employers are afraid to get rid of them, because they might get sued. Sad, sad, sad.


I have been very critical of our educational system... but it is not entirely a system issue. It is the fact that too many (way too many) kids do not want to learn at all. They don't even know why they have to go to school. And all of these kids hold back the ones that will benefit. Okay, blame the kids OR their parents. Doesn't matter who we blame, we are just wasting our money. Do an Internet search on Thomas Jefferson's plan. Basically if you did not achieve outstanding results, your free education ended and your parents had to pay if you wanted to continue. Way too many Americans do not value education, and we cannot change that by decree or legislation. Ben has shared some extremely useful insights on this. During the 70's there was a huge influx of Vietnamese refugees into Orange County, CA. Most could not speak English and experienced huge cultural disadvantages. But they understood the value of a good education. Their children were so focused and diligent in learning that the entire school system moved to higher standards and levels of performance. The 4.0 straight A system had to be changed, because almost all these kids got straight A's and did extra work to boot. Suddenly it was possible to get a 4.5 GPA with extra work and taking advanced courses that were college level. Yep, China and other countries are going to kick our butts, and it will be our own fault.

Your comment about "The Good" , as defined in the Nichomachean Ethics is well taken. But it is also contrasted to Arete, very much the product of the Polis and a central idea of the Athenian City State. Of course the Greek's Dionysian side also ascribed to the Wisdom of Silenus who when he was forced to answer the question " What is the greatest boon for man" answered " Never to have been at all . And the second best to die soon. " well noted in Beyond Good and Evil. Read the Oedipus Rex or The Bacchae .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia

Edited by Meander on 03/05/2011 18:47:52 MST.

""Yep, China and other countries are going to kick our butts, and it will be our own fault."

And that's exactly the thing I don't want to see!! Don't get me wrong -- I think trade can be a very good thing and there is a chance we can continue our relatively peaceful and prosperous world with new winners (BRIC countries, etc.) joining established ones -- instead of replacing them.

It is up to the Chinese, etc. to continue clawing their way up. And it is completely up to US to maintain our own edge. But we seem to be a nation getting softer and more scared at the same time! Just look at the 2012 Federal Budget: - $3.7T:

So what are we spending on that cost $3,729B?

Health care, Pension and Welfare -------------------------------------------------------------- 2,103...... 56%
Defense and domestic protection**---------------------------------------------------------------- 984......26
Interest payment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 242......6
Environment, housing, cultural, parks -------------------------------------------------------------- 142......4
Education ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 120......3
Transportation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 105......3
General government -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33......1

** Of which foreign military and economic aid are 15B and 48B respectively. Or 0.4% and 1.3% of total spending.

Source: USGovtSpending.com


To me, investing in the future would be things like education and infrastructure spending. But a whopping 88% of the budget goes to 'entitlements', defense, and interest payment!! And that leaves almost a pittance for investment spending like education and infrastructure!!

Obviously, we can't analyze our entire country based on a budget -- and more money doesn't solve everything -- but seriously, I think we have our priorities wrong. Our true security and well being depend not on militarily outspending more than the next 17 top spenders combined -- but in maintaining our technological edge! Sure, military spending pays research dividends too -- but it is a pretty darn inefficient way of doing so.

Edited by ben2world on 03/05/2011 19:01:08 MST.

Tom,

I am not saying that we need to dissolve government, society or groups, only that it is a voluntary arrangement that benefits each member of the group.


The reason groups, societies, or governments are created is based on a shared idea or set of beliefs. All actions of each member of the group must be aligned with the ideas that created the entity in the first place.


Allegiance is not based on the survival of the group or its members, but the ideas.


And we in America have lost our way. Why was the US Government formed? What were the ideas that defined us? Where did they come from? Can we survive if its citizens do not know the answers to these questions? No, it cannot.


And who are the intellectuals that will give us the answers today? They seem to come from Hollywood... at least on CNN, because they are constantly looking to Michael Moore, George Clooney, Sean Penn and others for advice and opinions.


Why is the Tea Party gaining momentum (I am not a supporter)? Because many Americans know something is wrong, only they do not know what it is. How did this happen? No philosophy that supports our existence.


Man benefits by joining together and the division of labor improves his lot. Each generation passes on ideas and knowledge. The problems we face today are not political problems, it is a philosophical problem; that is, an intellectual problem. Too many people do not know why they exist, what their purpose is, or where they are going. They do not function by ideas of the mind, but by a group mentality. People do not know what to do. Too many expect the Government to think for them, and to take care of them. And it is easy for despots to gain power and control over groups that have no understanding of why they exist.


So what separates man from the other life forms? The ability to understand reality using reason, to think in abstract terms, and to form conceptual ideas. Left alone against nature, man finds it difficult to survive, but he can. To survive man must THINK. And to increase his chances of survival he joins forces with other men. But without philosophy he is doomed in the end.