The Founding Fathers would be sick at what the corrupt big government politicians think on redistribution of wealth.

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”

— John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

— James Madison

Redistribution is what government does and has always done since the dawn of civilization

(12-07-2012 07:59 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Redistribution is what government does and has always done since the dawn of civilization

Which is why it should be limited to smallest extent possible while still being able to protect the basic rights of a free people.

(12-07-2012 07:59 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Redistribution is what government does and has always done since the dawn of civilization

Which is precisely why it's (government's) power should be kept as close to the people as possible (i.e., state/local should take precedence over federal), and it's size and scope restrained at every level, but most especially and urgently at the level which possesses ultimate jurisdiction (which has been the federal level since the 1860s).

You beat me to it, Jug

I kind of stand with Madison's quote. I don't care if there's redistribution but I don't want one, large model being imposed on all 50 states. That goes for anything not explicitly enumerated to the federal gov't from the constitution.

(12-07-2012 08:15 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:59 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Redistribution is what government does and has always done since the dawn of civilization

Which is precisely why it's (government's) power should be kept as close to the people as possible (i.e., state/local should take precedence over federal), and it's size and scope restrained at every level, but most especially and urgently at the level which possesses ultimate jurisdiction (which has been the federal level since the 1860s).

States like Mississippi are not capable of fairness to blacks, hispanics & gays. I seem to remember Georgia Governor Maddox standing on the statehouse steps with an axe in his hand to prevent segregation

(12-07-2012 08:23 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:15 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:59 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Redistribution is what government does and has always done since the dawn of civilization

Which is precisely why it's (government's) power should be kept as close to the people as possible (i.e., state/local should take precedence over federal), and it's size and scope restrained at every level, but most especially and urgently at the level which possesses ultimate jurisdiction (which has been the federal level since the 1860s).

States like Mississippi are not capable of fairness to blacks, hispanics & gays. I seem to remember Georgia Governor Maddox standing on the statehouse steps with an axe in his hand to prevent segregation

Going back to the 60's isn't helping with your argument in 2012. Civil rights are protected by the federal government.

(12-07-2012 07:59 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Redistribution is what government does and has always done since the dawn of civilization

Redistribution is immoral.

(12-07-2012 09:52 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:59 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Redistribution is what government does and has always done since the dawn of civilization

Redistribution is immoral.

Not immoral per se, but after a certain point it becomes an inefficient money suck. This is especially apparent when the federal government is calling all of the shots.

(12-07-2012 10:05 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 09:52 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:59 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Redistribution is what government does and has always done since the dawn of civilization

Redistribution is immoral.

Not immoral per se, but after a certain point it becomes an inefficient money suck. This is especially apparent when the federal government is calling all of the shots.

Yes.

(12-07-2012 09:52 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 07:59 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Redistribution is what government does and has always done since the dawn of civilization

Redistribution is immoral.

It's been going on since the first tax was levied or the first road was built and is in fact the function of government

(12-07-2012 08:23 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  States like Mississippi are not capable of fairness to blacks, hispanics & gays.

First of all, I disagree with your characterization of Mississippi. But even if I agreed with it, your point would still be irrelevant to a discussion about the proper role/function of sovereign power, and the ways in which (in the US) that power should be divided between state/local authorities and national/federal ones. And even if such a point was relevant to the discussion (as -- maybe? -- an indictment of "local" power vis-a-vis "federal" power), it would still fail to explain why any one state in particular is any less likely to use its power "fairly" than a group of states. Some people think America was not (is not?) capable of fairness to the native tribes that were living on this land prior to European settlements. If that point is true (and it's certainly no less true than your point about Mississippi), why then shouldn't "federal" government be as equally discredited as "state" government? There is no morally intelligible reason why it shouldn't be.

(12-07-2012 11:56 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:23 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  States like Mississippi are not capable of fairness to blacks, hispanics & gays.

First of all, I disagree with your characterization of Mississippi.

Do you live in Mississippi or are you just talking out your a$$ again? Mississippi has a bloody history that speaks for itself.

(12-07-2012 07:59 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Redistribution is what government does and has always done since the dawn of civilization

You are a liar.

(12-08-2012 12:06 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:56 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 08:23 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  States like Mississippi are not capable of fairness to blacks, hispanics & gays.

First of all, I disagree with your characterization of Mississippi.

Do you live in Mississippi or are you just talking out your a$$ again? Mississippi has a bloody history that speaks for itself.

You are a liar.

(12-08-2012 12:06 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Mississippi has a bloody history that speaks for itself.

So does America. So does the world. What's your point?