The Economist - "Inequality or middle incomes: which matters more?"

actually it mean general welfare within context of few enumerated powers given to federal govt. If not general welfare could mean anything they wanted as long has they said it was for general welfare. The American Revolution was for very very limited govt or freedom from liberal govt. Here's proof from Madison who wrote it:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

 

of course liberalism is based in illiteracy so how could a liberal know what our Founders meant by general welfare. Here is Jefferson on general welfare:

"It[general welfare] would reduce the whole instrument[Constitution} to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

 

wanting to live free from govt interference does not mean you want to be interfered with by murderers warlords isis militias terrorists etc. Make sense now?

 

the harm is to the people from whom the goods for the bottom two levels are stolen at gun point, and to the people who receive the stolen goods and are crippled by them.

 

I am reasonably certain that your deciding you don't have to pay taxes in any of those countries because you didn't personally grant to the government your permission to collect taxes will result in your eventual relocation to a prison or nut-house.

I am also reasonably certain the only places you will get away with rendering such a decision is in a country wherein the government has failed. That leaves you, at least for the time being, Somalia, Syria, and Afghanistan among, I am certain, a very few others.

The claim to be "libertarian" has nothing to do with it. The desire to simply ignore laws because you didn't personally approve of them does.

 

Those countries surely did not fail because of laissez-faire economics though.

 

Just so this gets repeated.

 

in a free country conservatives and libertarians want only laws with which we agree, at least to the greatest extent possible. liberals want any law they can pass regardless of what the minority wants or the minorities interest in freedom. This makes liberals fundamentally anti American

 

where's the harm in free goods and services to all???

The harm is to the peope from whom you steal the goods and services at gunpoint and to the people who receive the stolen goods and services

 

true!! they failed for same reason Hitler Stallin Mao failed , big liberal govts with big liberal ideas always fail!!

this is why our founders gave us freedom from big liberal govt and why we have been the most successful country in human history.

 

Yeah, but you guys totally left your principles and gave the state the freedom to outgrow the people. Now you are one of the most statist countries in the world.

 

New Zealand: Requires gun owner licensing and registration

• Switzerland: Levies personal taxes on a person's entire net worth.

• Canada: Strict gun control laws

• Australia: Strict gun control laws

• Ireland: Strict gun laws

• Finland: Strict gun laws

• Netherlands: Strict gun laws

• Denmark: Strict gun laws

• Chile: Requires gun registration

• Luxembourg: Bans all privately owned firearms

And that's just off the top.

Your choices if you want to pick and choose which laws you want to obey are still quite limited with Somalia, Syria, and Afghanistan at the top of the list.

 

Exactly, krypto-Communistic "Liberals" will never understand that there can never be such thing as a free lunch - somone always has to pay. Neither will they ever understad that "free stuff" takes away all the incentives to produce which will eventually lead to you running out of your free stuff.

 

Not the reality of the world. Did Madison ever contemplate super computers? Space stations?

The phrase is what it is. It grants to the Congress the power to do pretty much anything not expressly prohibited.

 

Look up.

 

So you're opposed to police? Fire services? Feeding the hungry? Clothing the needy?

Nothing is "stolen" from anyone.

WE THE PEOPLE have decided that these are necessary functions of government. You don't get to decide what laws you will and will not follow...unless we go back to the Somalia thing. Then you, as long as you posses the power, can do what you want.

 

opposed to socialism not police !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you understand?

 

subject was not feeding the hungry, but basic goods more or less free to all.

 

then why do liberals use guns to obtain the goods???

 

you mean some people decided and used guns to force their ideas on others

 

The collective paying for public services IS socialism.

 

All who need them.

 

in a free country you do get to decide to the greatest extent possible, the majority has no right to become Nazis over the minority.

 

What guns? Seems you are unaware of your collective brag about being in charge.

You know...Presidency, Congress, most governors, most legislatures...So who is it that's using the guns?

 

So you are opposed to our republican form of government? I guess that explains your support for TrumpCo and love of Putin. They feel the same way.