Does the US government have a role in improving the general welfare?

Should the US government promote the general welfare?

  • Total voters
    109
Tony99 said:
Or until such time that other neighbors band together to enact swift justice on the polluter and teach them a stern lesson in 'actions and consequences.'
Click to expand...


And maybe coordinating their actions, perhaps getting together in groups and deciding on representatives, possibly through some sort of ballot, then maybe electing a spokesperson or leader, let's call them "The President", in order to bring to bear the power of the community in the face of antisocial behavior on the part of the individual.


Maybe that's a bit radical...
 
BobTheCoward said:
This is similar to moral relativism.You are holding the position that under certain circumstances, nations can define what is legitimate for them. My position is absolutist. Regardless of what any one nation thinks, I will test their system against an absolutist position.
Click to expand...

Moral relativism is different than “not moral absolutism”, and no it’s not similar to moral relativism. Nation, government and role of government are concepts defined by and for people. These definitions are nether relative nor “first principles” that someone believes without any rational reason for said belief.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is an essential element of mathematics.
Click to expand...

No. Mathematics is based on a system of definitions and axioms. Axioms themselves are at most can only be considered true within a specific context. They are not similar to the absolute first principles you are trying to appeal to.
 
acbytesla said:
I think there are a whole lot of things that are beyond the scope of what the founders intended. They certainly never imagined the role of corporations. There is no way the founders could come close to imagining our world today.

The words 'general welfare do not mean 'individual welfare'. Nevertheless, it can easily be argued that the various social programs that help the poor and even the middle class do in fact promote the 'general welfare. The only question in my mind are the social programs a benefit to the nation. If you conclude that they are then they are constitutional.
Click to expand...

This is the point I am wondering about. Social Security, for instance, is a social program, but at the end of the day disburses a check to an individual, for their individual use. The general welfare should be oriented more to the collective, as in raising an army to fend off those who would menace the people as a collective.

In terms of the OP, as others noted, anything that gov't does is at least in theory geared to promoting the general welfare, in one form or another. But how direct should that welfare be promoted? Cutting checks to individuals (essentially providing iPods, as sir drinks-a-lot said), or more generalized, as in keeping the dogs at bay and leaving the individual's welfare free and unmolested? Maybe the OP question just boils down to 'are you a small gov't conservative or a big gov't progressive'.
 
lomiller said:
Moral relativism is different than “not moral absolutism”, and no it’s not similar to moral relativism. Nation, government and role of government are concepts defined by and for people. These definitions are nether relative nor “first principles” that someone believes without any rational reason for said belief.
Click to expand...

Accepting the legitimate role of government as defined by the people rather than against a standard is a choice. Why you should choose one strategy or the other is the question.
 
Thermal said:
This is the point I am wondering about. Social Security, for instance, is a social program, but at the end of the day disburses a check to an individual, for their individual use. The general welfare should be oriented more to the collective, as in raising an army to fend off those who would menace the people as a collective.

In terms of the OP, as others noted, anything that gov't does is at least in theory geared to promoting the general welfare, in one form or another. But how direct should that welfare be promoted? Cutting checks to individuals (essentially providing iPods, as sir drinks-a-lot said), or more generalized, as in keeping the dogs at bay and leaving the individual's welfare free and unmolested? Maybe the OP question just boils down to 'are you a small gov't conservative or a big gov't progressive'.
Click to expand...

But it's not simply the defense of the nation they were concerned about. Otherwise, they would have left it at 'defending the nation. They didn't. It's clear to me that the government has a role in promoting the well being of us all.

Is it good for the nation that so few have so much and so many have so little? Are we really promoting the 'general welfare' when this is the result? I don't know where you live, but having traveled all over this country for the last 40 years, the numbers of people living in the streets and panhandling have skyrocketed and it doesn't seem to matter if it is a small town or a big city.

Is it good for the nation government ensure that the water we drink is clean and our medicines are not fake? Is it good that we steward the land and our nation's resources?

Or should government get out of the way and allow 'the haves' to make all the decisions? And out of curiosity, do you think that will make decisions for the general welfare or their own anth theirs personal welfare?
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Accepting the legitimate role of government as defined by the people rather than against a standard is a choice. Why you should choose one strategy or the other is the question.
Click to expand...

This is nonsensical. Humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years with no concept of government or nation, whatsoever. Nations and governments only exist because people created them and created the concepts. How can something that exist only as a creation of people have an assigned have a role that is absolute and independent of what people wish to create. As a creation of people, government can have whatever role those people wish it to have.


BobTheCoward said:
Why you should choose one strategy or the other is the question.
Click to expand...

The mistake you are making is that you think it's your choice.
 
acbytesla said:
The words 'general welfare do not mean 'individual welfare'. Nevertheless, it can easily be argued that the various social programs that help the poor and even the middle class do in fact promote the 'general welfare. The only question in my mind are the social programs a benefit to the nation. If you conclude that they are then they are constitutional.
Click to expand...
'General welfare' and 'individual welfare' are not mutually exclusive and I would be hard pressed to come up with an example that accomplishes one without doing the other to some extent.

However, the reverse undoubtedly does not follow. Something that helps an individual specifically needs more of an argument to say it promotes the general welfare. This is Politics so, for example, Trump channelling government money/resources into his private businesses definitely promotes his individual welfare without but does nothing for the general welfare.
 
lomiller said:
This is nonsensical. Humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years with no concept of government or nation, whatsoever. Nations and governments only exist because people created them and created the concepts. How can something that exist only as a creation of people have an assigned have a role that is absolute and independent of what people wish to create. As a creation of people, government can have whatever role those people wish it to have.




The mistake you are making is that you think it's your choice.
Click to expand...

I never said it can't have a role. I said the role was illegitimate.

It is absolutely my choice. I can adopt and analyze using any framework.
 
It is very American to even ask the question. Everywhere else the answer is yes, in the same way the answer to the question do schools have a role in improving pupil welfare is yes. It is blindingly obvious to the rest of us the answer is yes.

From defending the nation, to enforcing laws, to providing sewage systems, governments improve welfare.
 
Nessie said:
It is very American to even ask the question. Everywhere else the answer is yes, in the same way the answer to the question do schools have a role in improving pupil welfare is yes. It is blindingly obvious to the rest of us the answer is yes.

From defending the nation, to enforcing laws, to providing sewage systems, governments improve welfare.
Click to expand...

Do schools have a legitimate role in improving pupil welfare?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I never said it can't have a role. I said the role was illegitimate.
Click to expand...

You don’t get to decide that.
BobTheCoward said:
It is absolutely my choice. I can adopt and analyze using any framework.
Click to expand...


No, you can’t. You need to evaluate things based on what they are, not what you think they should be.

At most you can disagree with the decisions made at that time but since you’ve given us no reason to care about your pet theories on how nations should operate we dismiss them out of hand in spite of your claims they are somehow fundamental or absolute.
 
I'll own one of the "no's". I did the right thing and didn't read the spoiler prior to voting. I got hung up on the word, "Improve". Then I wanted to compare the definitions of "improve" vs. "promote".

My view is that it's on me to improve my lot in life, and the government doesn't owe me a better life than what my choices allow.

I goofed. I concede that the government does have a role in promoting the general welfare.
 
Thermal said:
This is the point I am wondering about. Social Security, for instance, is a social program, but at the end of the day disburses a check to an individual, for their individual use. The general welfare should be oriented more to the collective, as in raising an army to fend off those who would menace the people as a collective.

In terms of the OP, as others noted, anything that gov't does is at least in theory geared to promoting the general welfare, in one form or another. But how direct should that welfare be promoted? Cutting checks to individuals (essentially providing iPods, as sir drinks-a-lot said), or more generalized, as in keeping the dogs at bay and leaving the individual's welfare free and unmolested? Maybe the OP question just boils down to 'are you a small gov't conservative or a big gov't progressive'.
Click to expand...

You're playing around with using different words for different programs.

Social Security is a program in the sense that it holds a portion of the labor value an individual generates, invests it in a stable instrument on their behalf, and then returns the gains to them. The program does not gift anything to individuals, they already earned it (the very definition of entitlement, despite it seeming to be a dirty word these days).

At the end of the day, raising an army involves sending individual checks to individual soldiers and weapons contractors for their individual use.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
You don’t get to decide that.



No, you can’t. You need to evaluate things based on what they are, not what you think they should be.

At most you can disagree with the decisions made at that time but since you’ve given us no reason to care about your pet theories on how nations should operate we dismiss them out of hand in spite of your claims they are somehow fundamental or absolute.
Click to expand...

And I have no interest in convincing you of my pet theories. My complaint is that remarks you made previously made it sound like pet theories are not possible.
 
BobTheCoward said:
And I have no interest in convincing you of my pet theories. My complaint is that remarks you made previously made it sound like pet theories are not possible.
Click to expand...

Your pet theories are not possible. Did you look at the video of your last convention? The sanest person there came off looking like a nutcase and he was your nominee. If there ever was an election where Libertarians could have made progress it was the last one and you all completely ********** the neighbor's dog. You all couldn't even break 5 percent when the major party candidates were BOTH the least popular in modern history. Your vision is not America's vision.
 
Craig4 said:
Your pet theories are not possible. Did you look at the video of your last convention? The sanest person there came off looking like a nutcase and he was your nominee. If there ever was an election where Libertarians could have made progress it was the last one and you all completely ********** the neighbor's dog. You all couldn't even break 5 percent when the major party candidates were BOTH the least popular in modern history. Your vision is not America's vision.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with a theory being not possible to exist? How does that render the words I write non existent?
 
Craig4 said:
Your pet theories are not possible. Did you look at the video of your last convention? The sanest person there came off looking like a nutcase and he was your nominee.
Click to expand...

Every one a better human being then the other party candidates.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Do schools have a legitimate role in improving pupil welfare?
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. You don't appear to believe education has any legitimate role at all.

Spock Jenkins said:
I'll own one of the "no's". I did the right thing and didn't read the spoiler prior to voting. I got hung up on the word, "Improve". Then I wanted to compare the definitions of "improve" vs. "promote".

My view is that it's on me to improve my lot in life, and the government doesn't owe me a better life than what my choices allow.

I goofed. I concede that the government does have a role in promoting the general welfare.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the bad wording in the OP.
 
To answer the OP.

- Spend the an eternity deciding if it's the government's place to promote general welfare.
- Once that's settled spend another eternity arguing over what defines the general welfare.
 
acbytesla said:
But it's not simply the defense of the nation they were concerned about. Otherwise, they would have left it at 'defending the nation. They didn't. It's clear to me that the government has a role in promoting the well being of us all.
Click to expand...

Yes, I used the military as an example, not as a limit.

Is it good for the nation that so few have so much and so many have so little? Are we really promoting the 'general welfare' when this is the result?
Click to expand...

Tricky questions. Opportunity and reward for work are good things, to be sure. Should there be a cap imposed on those upper few? Would that stifle productivity and innovation if there were? Are you suggesting that a heavy dose of socialism is needed for the general welfare? Would it follow then that the founders were wrong in their advocacy of personal liberty? I don't disagree with you, but I am not convinced that the medicine is better than the sickness.

I don't know where you live, but having traveled all over this country for the last 40 years, the numbers of people living in the streets and panhandling have skyrocketed and it doesn't seem to matter if it is a small town or a big city.

Is it good for the nation government ensure that the water we drink is clean and our medicines are not fake? Is it good that we steward the land and our nation's resources?
Click to expand...

I consider agencies like the EPA and FDA to be on a par with the military, protecting the populace at large from threats.

Or should government get out of the way and allow 'the haves' to make all the decisions? And out of curiosity, do you think that will make decisions for the general welfare or their own anth theirs personal welfare?
Click to expand...

I absolutely would not relegate anything to the 'one percent'. In Thermal's happy world, the poorest would receive needed care funded by progressive taxation on the wealthy. Public school funding would be distributed evenly, not collected from local property taxes leaving poor communities to have their educational systems wither.

But I would consider the military, EPA and the rest protecting the general welfare, not promoting it. I think what is meant by 'promoting', as the OP asks, is more like encouraging what they think is good for us (more or less). On that front I would prefer to have less nanny-state promotion. It could also be convincingly argued that the 'haves' already have the lion's share of influence in public policy, and they do not have our best interests at heart.

So where does gov't promoting stop? Do they see to our every need and defend against every threat? Monitor your cholesterol? Supervise your sex life? I would prefer the minimum of promotion, while providing a safety net at the low end.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
You're playing around with using different words for different programs.

Social Security is a program in the sense that it holds a portion of the labor value an individual generates, invests it in a stable instrument on their behalf, and then returns the gains to them. The program does not gift anything to individuals, they already earned it (the very definition of entitlement, despite it seeming to be a dirty word these days).
Click to expand...

No, there is no Delphic Oracle account in Social Security. Applicants in some circumstances can absolutely collect more than they paid in, and the current contributors are footing the bill. That is partially why the shortfall is predicted.

At the end of the day, raising an army involves sending individual checks to individual soldiers and weapons contractors for their individual use.
Click to expand...

Of course. In any system save pure communism, there is payment to workers. But the purpose of a military is not to provide a check for soldiers and support contractors, it is to protect the general populace and the country's interests.
 
BobTheCoward said:
And I have no interest in convincing you of my pet theories. My complaint is that remarks you made previously made it sound like pet theories are not possible.
Click to expand...

It’s possible you believe that’s how it should be, but that’s as far as it goes. People believe a lot of stupid stuff; this is just another example. There is no reasonable argument for bringing them into any practice discussion.
 
lomiller said:
It’s possible you believe that’s how it should be, but that’s as far as it goes. People believe a lot of stupid stuff; this is just another example. There is no reasonable argument for bringing them into any practice discussion.
Click to expand...

Because a person feels like it and doesn't violate the rules seems to be the only requirement to bring something up here.
 
Thermal said:
No, there is no Delphic Oracle account in Social Security. Applicants in some circumstances can absolutely collect more than they paid in, and the current contributors are footing the bill. That is partially why the shortfall is predicted.
Click to expand...

Some people can collect more than they paid in, and others can pay in their entire lives and die before collecting a cent. That is not why there is a shortfall coming, that is purely because Congress dips into the savings account and doesn't repay the loans.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Some people can collect more than they paid in, and others can pay in their entire lives and die before collecting a cent. That is not why there is a shortfall coming, that is purely because Congress dips into the savings account and doesn't repay the loans.
Click to expand...

SSI is insurance. It only pays out if there is a valid claim. If one never requires a settlement, one is not forthcoming regardless of the premiums paid.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Some people can collect more than they paid in, and others can pay in their entire lives and die before collecting a cent.
Click to expand...

Yes, but survivors of the deceased collect the money, even if the contributor didn't. Still a net loss against those who pull in more than they put out.

That is not why there is a shortfall coming, that is purely because Congress dips into the savings account and doesn't repay the loans.
Click to expand...

Yes, IIRC, President Clinton was accused of looting the SS funds to accomplish his famed balanced budgets?
 
Upchurch said:
'General welfare' and 'individual welfare' are not mutually exclusive and I would be hard pressed to come up with an example that accomplishes one without doing the other to some extent.

However, the reverse undoubtedly does not follow. Something that helps an individual specifically needs more of an argument to say it promotes the general welfare. This is Politics so, for example, Trump channelling government money/resources into his private businesses definitely promotes his individual welfare without but does nothing for the general welfare.
Click to expand...

I'm on your side and totally believe improving society improves the lives of individuals.

But I can think of examples where the individual suffers in order to benefit the society. Without even going into the eminent domain issues, I provide goods and services in my business and if public health decides to offer some of those same services they can undercut me and I lose business.

I am a firm believer we all benefit with certain services being public like education, police, fire, utilities, and medical. While capitalism provides a better outcome for many other things. But if you were in the business of selling security or medical services, for example, it's hard to compete with the government.

I still think overall we benefit from a mix of public and private services.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom