D13theColonel vs Mathius Part 3: Entitlements

Let the debate continue  😀 😀  😀

entiltlements

Some pictures from trail cam

MOULTRIE DIGITAL GAME CAMERA

MOULTRIE DIGITAL GAME CAMERA

MOULTRIE DIGITAL GAME CAMERA

MOULTRIE DIGITAL GAME CAMERA

MOULTRIE DIGITAL GAME CAMERA

MOULTRIE DIGITAL GAME CAMERA

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 😎

  2. THank you sir………I will take the lead on this one…..stay tuned.

  3. Full Definition of entitlement
    1. 1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
    2. 2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
    3. 3 : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

    Legal Definition of natural right
    1. : a right considered to be conferred by natural law
    Natural law, in philosophy, a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law.

    Myth: Rights are natural, inalienable, God-given and self-evident.

    Fact: Rights are social constructs.

    I offer these definitions as I think that they totally apply to “entitlements.” I also agree to these definitions and that these definitions are not construct to further interpretation. Consequently, are entitlements “rights” or are they actually a social construct forced upon us. We are constantly told by the left what SOME people are entitled to receive. Some on the left say that everyone is entitled to a house, a car, food, a good paying job, an easy life, a pay check without the work, cell phones, medical care and just about anything else they can dream up or want. But are we really entitled to any of that or to anything for that matter?
    “As far as our government is concerned, it technically doesn’t owe us anything. Our form of government does have some inherent concepts that do guarantee us certain things. That is it will guarantee it as long as it remains loyal to its own values. Those guarantees are equality among all men, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the right to a speedy trial, right to jury of our peers, rights against unlawful search and seizures, rights against double jeopardy, rights against self-incrimination, right to due process within the law, right to confront all accusers, right to legal counsel, right of fair bail and fines, rights against cruel and unusual punishments, right to bear arms, right to free speech, right to assembly, the right of religious freedom and the right of protection from our own government.” I can agree with this statement. It is not mine but it does say what I want to say more eloquently. It also sets out what rights should actually be and none of this pertains to what should be received. It is black and white and not subject to interpretation. For example, the pursuit of happiness does not mean you are entitled to money not earned. You cannot take “cruel and unusual punishment” and turn it to mean entitled to health care or vacations or housing. There were no other entitlements built into our government when it was created. Any other entitlements that someone may feel they are entitled to receive, are purely fiction or they are part of the corruption to our system.

    “The left is working hard to create all the “entitlements” that it can. What the left is doing by promising other “entitlements”, is promising a false sense of happiness. When they give away “entitlements” all they are doing is bribing the populous.” To this, D13 also agrees. It is nothing but a bribe disguised as unequal treatment. You must earn your way in this world and to give anything is to make the recipient a slave. I thought that slavery was dead, but when you become dependent upon the government, you are, indeed, a slave. “We all know that those entitlements have to come from somewhere. They aren’t manufactured out of thin air. They have to come from someone and that someone is the rest of the American populous. The part of the populous that has to give up its “entitlements” for the left’s bribery, is composed of those who actually work and earn their way through life. This part of the populous is the productive class and they are actually entitled to what they receive because everyone should be entitled to the rewards of their labor. Unlike the lazy class, the productive class doesn’t feel that anyone owes them anything, other than what they have worked to achieve.” D13 cannot add anything to this statement….it is exactly what the reality is and should be.

    For BF, JAC, and GMan, who specifically voice this opinion, “The “entitlements” the government promises to people are nothing more than theft. The government steals it from the hard working members of society and gives it to the lazy members of society. Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying, not all of the recipients are lazy but a vast majority of them are. Many of the recipients couldn’t work if they wanted to and I would bet that those are the few recipients who would rather work if they could.” D13 can only add and emphasize that the word theft in this context means taking money from those that earn it and redistribute it among those that do not earn it. Theft, in this context does not mean taxes designed to provide for common defense.

    Is social security an entitlement? No, it is a contract with ONLY those who are part of the contract….to mean those that LEGALLY paid into the system. And there is no way that you can stretch LEGALLY paid into the system to an immigrant that entered the United States unlawfully. I think you get the gist. You know if you repeat the same lie enough times the people will start to believe the lie, especially when they can see a profit in the lie.
    “If Americans don’t start learning the value of earning what they receive then America is doomed to destruction. Nothing ever comes free. Everything received has a price even when it is called free or an entitlement. Just because you received it without any out of your pocket expense that doesn’t mean it didn’t cost something. It just means that someone else paid the price for you and you will pay for it later with something else. That something else usually means you will pay with a loss of your rights.” D13 further extrapolates the issue of losing “rights” as explained above to also mean that when you become a slave to theft from others…you have lost all sense of morality and you have given up your natural right of independence. Government entitlements are paid for by the tax payers……. the government is just the broker or thief who collects the money. There are no entitlements in this world only theft and the sharing of the booty or in the words of the left… “re-distribution”.
    In closing, this, by no means that you throw the TRULY needy out in the street but the government does not actually have the responsibility to determine who is truly needy. I do not agree that people are greedy by nature….but some may be. The leftist defines greed as those who are better off than others. I submit that the truly needy, properly defined, is less than 10% of the populous and the more wealthy give to those charities to take care of the TRULY needy. Entitlements create slavery….it breeds contempt….and, more so, it breeds complacency and robs incentive….the greatest theft of all.

    • Ok, that was quite the wall o’ text. Going to have to break that up a bit.

      Myth: Rights are natural, inalienable, God-given and self-evident.

      Fact: Rights are social constructs.

      False. Well, mostly. I’m going to ignore the “god given” part because we have to be nice to our atheist friends.

      There are Rights and “rights.” The former are immutable laws of nature. They are not subject to the whims of men and governments. Among these: personal safety and autonomy. Physical security and the pursuit of self determination. Freedom of speech, association, religion (or lack thereof), and conscience. Also, the right of mutual contract (except as it infringes on the rights of others).

      Then there are “rights.” These are conferred by the gov’ment. Sometimes the two agree, sometimes the two conflict. Where there is a conflict, the gov’ment may get its way via force (or threat thereof), but its “win” does not negate the fact that it is in violation of natural Rights. Between the two, Rights are by far the superior moral structure. “rights” may include patent rights, broadcast rights, the right to operate a moving vehicle, voting rights, gun ownership rights, etc. The important thing to remember is that these are determined by society and are neither fixed, nor perfect.

      Then there’s a hazy middle ground of, say, property rights where there is some concept of “greater good” such as taxes or eminent domain. There’s a story:

      A man walks into a bar and approaches a gorgeous woman. He says “will you sleep with me for $1,000,000. She is shocked, but considers. A million is a lot of money.
      “Ok, I’ll do it,” she says.
      “Will you sleep with me for $1?” asks the man.
      The woman is offended and outraged. “What kind of woman do you take me for!?!”
      “Well, we already know what kind of woman you are – now we’re just negotiating price.”

      You see, if you are willing to stipulate (as I believe you did on Part II) any confiscation of personal property (eg taxes), you’re already determined that you’re a statist like myself, and now just a question of how much so. That’s why Flag (and JAC) insist so strongly that taxes are illegitimate theft: because they hold that property belongs in the category of Rights and is, thus, an immutable law of nature.

    • Consequently, are entitlements “rights” or are they actually a social construct forced upon us.

      Entitlements (as defined) are absolutely, without question, 100%, unequivocally man mad social constructs.

      Period.

      Full stop.

      Natural law (read Rights – with a big R) imposes no requirement that we give anyone anything beyond recognition and respect for their natural rights. In other words, you don’t have to do anything for anyone other than to not infringe on their rights.

    • We are constantly told by the left what SOME people are entitled to receive.

      Yes. We, on the left, believe that no one, for example, should ever have to go hungry or be deprived of “adequate” shelter or medical treatment.

      We believe that it is a fundamental component of a mature and healthy society that all members – even and especially the least and most vulnerable of these – have these basic needs met. Wherein they cannot provide for these need themselves, they must be provided for by the society at the expense of the more fortunate.

      You suggest this is a leftist view, but you’d find little support outside of the most extreme pirate latitudes that there isn’t some level of societal obligation to the needy via gov’ment action even amongst righties.

      Some on the left say that everyone is entitled to a house, a car, food, a good paying job, an easy life, a pay check without the work, cell phones, medical care and just about anything else they can dream up or want. But are we really entitled to any of that or to anything for that matter?

      House: no. Shelter: yes. You aren’t entitled so, say, a single family dwelling in the suburbs, but you are entitled to a roof over your head, and heat in the winter.

      Good Paying Job: a minimum wage is a societal construct meant to keep people out of poverty by ensuring that they receive enough to live on in exchange for their work. I’m not sure what you might mean beyond this.

      Easy life: Objection: strawman.

      A Paycheck without the work: Objection: strawman. Unless you’re referring to those who cannot work, in which case, maybe.

      Cell phones: No. Buy maybe within limits. We give out phones to the homeless that can call police in emergencies. I see nothing wrong with this. We also (a policy started under Bush II, but that someone came to be called the ObamaPhone) have a policy of giving cell phones to welfare recipients as it make it easier to find a job – thus making it easier to get out of poverty and off the government’s dole. I don’t know too much about the cost-benefit of this program, but I’m open to your thoughts if you want to further discuss.

      Medical care: YES YES YES and HELL YES. People shouldn’t die suffer just because they can’t afford things.

      • “Yes. We, on the left, believe that no one, for example, should ever have to go hungry or be deprived of “adequate” shelter or medical treatment.” D13 does not see a disagreement here….just the method. It is not, nor should be, a function of government. It should be accomplished through the civilized aptitude of individuals and not forced upon anyone without consent.

        ” they must be provided for by the society at the expense of the more fortunate.” D13 throws in his objection here. NO NO NO…..they must be provided for by the entire society…not just the more fortunate and it must be voluntary.

        Yes, some of those were strawman items but worthy of mention because it made a point. Your cell phone answer was strawman…you learned well, Patewan.

        Never did I say Medical care was not needed…….I am saying it is not an entitlement. You are not guaranteed medical care. It is, however, available through the LOCAL County taxation. I happily pay local taxes to my county hospital…..but I owe nothing to New Yorkers. Even though I am on it, I do not believe in Medicare nor do I believe that the government should be in charge of any portion of medical care. The TRULY needy ( those who cannot legitimately work ) are always taken care of everywhere.

    • Any other entitlements that someone may feel they are entitled to receive, are purely fiction or they are part of the corruption to our system.

      You were doing so well right up until the end.

      “Corruption” implies a negative change.

      We might suggest the more current interpretations of the law are *ahem* improvements.

      For example, you no longer have the “right” to own people.

      • Corruption is a word that I use deliberately and, of course, it is a negative change. Look what is happening now through the corruption of Obamacare. It is dying and rightly so…..it did not do what it was intended and the costs were far more than anticipated and the government at the time knew this….that is corruption.

        • One might argue that it doesn’t work as well as it was supposed to work because opposition weakened it and forced through a bloated and messy version in need of repair rather than a clean version that would have worked…..

          Not me, of course, I would never suggest such a thing… but someone else might…

          • One could argue that…..if he/she/it got into your mislabeled Grog….

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Mathius: 100% of Obamacare’s issues can be placed at, on and around Obama and his party. They systematically ignored the people who objected then and as now. They ignored the opposition and any modifications while the law was being argued. Even though Obama said quote ” I’ll accept any good idea that the Republicans have” Knowing full well he considered any idea they might have as as NOT a good idea. It was all words and a fraud. If the law in anyway could be seen as a bipartisan law I might accept your statement that “the opposition weakened it and forced through a bloated messy version” But the law was written completely behind closed doors without and Republican input and any votes. Obama and Sibalius and their cronies built it, and his administration tacked on infinite regulations once the 2000 page bill was passed that NOBODY in Congress read who passed it, and they admitted it.

    • “The left is working hard to create all the “entitlements” that it can.

      OBJECTION!

      “The left” is not an entity with a goal and a plan. It is a collection of people with a similar opinion. I, certainly, am not “working hard to create all the entitlements that I can” – so who is in on this vast left wing conspiracy?

      Why are we trying to create all the entitlements that we can?

      What is the plan?

      What is the goal?

      Are the Mole People involved?

      • OVER-RULED……the left, maybe not you, does have an agenda. The left is far more elitist than the right ever thought of being. you create entitlements to buy votes and to buy power and to keep people down and to keep them dependent.

        But…..that is why we are debating our viewpoints……not arguing.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        The GOAL is global SOCIALISM. To deny this reeks of willful ignorance.

        Now I will grant you that because of differences among people the version of socialism will also differ. But that is in fact the goal of those claiming to be on the left.

        The irony is that there are many factions that hold similar views and objectives but think theirs will not result in socialism. Like the hard core Libertarians and the Anarchists.

        The plan is to reduce the wealthy nations and spread that wealth to the poor nations. It is to implement a global governing body which will manage the world’s resources according the principles of “social democracy”.

        • You keep insisting there’s a “goal” and a “plan”… I’m a leftist elitist. I have some connection to Democratic politics. I get the top-secret Zionist newsletter.

          How is it that you’re aware of our secret plans, yet I am not?

    • When they give away “entitlements” all they are doing is bribing the populous.

      OBJECTION!

      While, certainly, and undeniably, some entitlements are meant as “freebies” to buy support, this is done on by all politicians in some form or another, whether it’s the right buying planes the military doesn’t need in order to support a plant in their district or the left increasing some welfare program.

      The main thrust of “entitlements” as we, on the left, see them is to help those in need. To malign all entitlements as bribes is to ignore that there’s a good intent (even if you disagree with the efficacy of the policies themselves). We aren’t (only) interested in gaining a permanent majority – we want to make the world a better place.

      We’re not evil. We’re idealistic hippies.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        You may not be evil, but your ideology certainly is evil.

        Ironically, the idealistic hippies were not pushing for Govt. handouts. Only for people to escape the Corporate and BIG GOVT. controls.

        • At least I don’t smell like cannabis and patchouli. 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            I cannot confirm that but take your word for it.

            I do apologize for my somewhat flippant response. Had to run and pick up last nights wind storm product from the driveway and yard. While doing that I was thinking about your long comment. Much of it was petty good. Still some holes but still pretty well done.

            In keeping with the SUFA spirit I should have acknowledged that and not just the negative aspects.

            The one hole I want to address now is your comment about rights coming from Govt. I think it more accurate to say that those types of rights are identified by people within a given culture or nation/state. While much of the European and Asian experience with rights do fit the “from govt.” view, America was founded on the Enlightenment theory that the authority and power of govt. comes from the people and thus the rights must also come from those same people.

            It is true that our “representatives” express those rights via legislation and other laws, but most often these rights are developed or expressed by the people first.

            This is why the “right” to an abortion has never been settled among the people It came from Govt., the Supreme Court in this case. The people had not arrived at that conclusion and at least half did not accept it.

            So I am saying your comment is not wrong, just not as accurate as it could be.

      • OVER-RULED…..sort of…..I will agree to your explanation here if you provide a different explanation of those in need. Meaning……what is actual need.

        As to the Cannabis…….****ahem**** I saw the mislabeling of the casks of Grog…..

        • Those who, through inability to find sufficient work (or sufficiently paying work), are unable to provide for the basic necessities of life: food*, basic shelter**, and physical safety***.

          * meeting accepted medical guidelines of general nutrition.
          ** basic means basic. Dry, protected from the elements, heat if necessary, has a bed, sanitary bathroom facilities. I’m personally ok with this being a barracks.
          *** includes medical necessities****.
          **** let doctors determine what this means.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            When I lived in Italy almost 40 years ago, they had a national health system. One catch..you had to WORK at something. Any work was acceptable. The health care was basic with NO frills. The government was able to handle that. When getting involved with the EU and with Germany and France as the big boys on the block, and services grew to such a degree debt was the only option. Those that could not work for some reason or another there was strong family ties and charities etc. Those that refused to work that could were cut out…period, by the State. Look at Obamacare……NO LIMITS, that is a sure road to insolvancy. No personal responsibility to improve your health, insurance will take care of it regardless. When I was working before retirement I had what was labeled as a gold plated medical insurance plan, and I had a lot of choice in it to fit my single independent lifestyle.. This was regarded by Obama as a negative and unfair. When I retired, after Obamacare was passed the bill sent to me by at&t to continue any healthcare via the company equaled $10,600 per year out of pocket before ANY benefit was paid. I was 60…..why would I be required to pay for maternity care. Any kids I might have had any responsibility for have been out on their own since 1988. I do not use drugs in any way….why would I need to pay for rehab services due to substance abuse. All these things were optional before…required after Obamacare came into existance. Service options there was NO option, so the lie was you had many options and plans to choose from. The option was only how much deductible and co payment you wished to pay to moderate your monthly premium.

            Just as an FYI and I may have said this before. An old girlfriend of mine is from Sicily. We met while I was stationed there, Our lives did go down different paths but we do keep in touch and meet periodically. She married an executive from an avionics company and he makes a sizable income. This enabled her to send home 100% of her income to ASSIST her family back in Sicily. I know the family and they were not at anytime lazy or not working their collective asses off to keep their homes, provide healthcare that was not covered under the basic State benefits, tuitions. Property taxes were not levied for schools. You had kids in school you paid personally. No kids…no school tax. When she was retired at 60, by the University of Southern Maryland, her income ceased. The demand on that income did not. So that now comes out of her husbands income, reducing what they have available for their use and immediate family here, much less savings for the time when he retires, for their livelihood. He wants to retire due to health issues but can not, the demand on his continued working income is to great. The nieces and nephews are all trying to get out of europe and some have succeeded. The sad thing is they all have to deal with work visas when international and those can be revoked at any time. One nephew whom I know has been with the 2nd largest container shipping company in the world. he’s been with them for 10 years and has worked all over the world. He currently is in Houston TX and just now is making enough money to get an apt on his own without roommates. He does send home all that he can spare to help care for his siblings back home and Mother…….this is what we as normal people have to look forward to. the writing is on the wall, and proven over and over again.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              I forgot…..even my IBM and at&t gold plated healthcare plans had annual and lifetime limits. Obamacare has none that I know of.

    • I thought that slavery was dead, but when you become dependent upon the government, you are, indeed, a slave.

      NONSENSE!

      NONSENSE AND BAH HUMBUG!

      If I give you something and you need want more of it, that doesn’t make you my slave. That’s absurd on the face of it.

      Don’t like being dependent on the government? Fine. Go live in a cabin in the mountains and grow your own food. Start hiking the Appalachian Train, pick a random spot, turn left, and walk until you find a nice clearing. Learn to play the bango. Grow a glorious beard. You are “free.”

      How can you be a slave when you are free to walk away at any point?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Mathius, the Democrats love to use the threat of losing welfare benfitd of y get vote Republican, which is a lie. Let the SNAP cards not work and see what happens (has already happened in the South).

        Sorry friend, those on welfare who CHOOSE not to be free are slaves of the State. They may not be forced to work like what we all see as slaves, but they vote for their freebies. SLAVES, all of them.

      • QUIT….you know exactly what I mean…even slaves were free to “run” away…..they just had to run fast…..when you become dependent upon government, you are a slave to government. You know good and well I did not meant the cotton choppin’ days.

        • Slaves who ran away were pursued and risked capture, death, and torture. That’s not “free to run away.”

          You demean the word.

          Try “addicted.”

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            So then it is the wealthy who are the slaves. Because if Uncle decides to take their money and they try to run away, they will be pursued, captured, tortured and perhaps put to death.

    • “We all know that those entitlements have to come from somewhere. They aren’t manufactured out of thin air. They have to come from someone and that someone is the rest of the American populous.

      Agreed.

      And even when they do “create” the money out of thin air, it devalues the money in our bank accounts, effectively taxing us that way. This statement is patently true. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and money into one pocket has to come out of another pocket.

      … That said … We lefties do love Keynesian economics. When we give the money to the poor, that money doesn’t just disappear either. It was neither created nor destroyed. And, being poor, they spend every red cent of it. And that money is spent at businesses. And those businesses employ people. And when the poor have more money to spend, the businesses make more money. And when they make more money, they hire more people. And when they hire more people, fewer people are unemployed and in need of welfare. Just sayin’….

      The part of the populous that has to give up its “entitlements” for the left’s bribery, is composed of those who actually work and earn their way through life. This part of the populous is the productive class and they are actually entitled to what they receive because everyone should be entitled to the rewards of their labor.

      OBJECTION!

      I really don’t want to even dignify this, but I will.

      Just because someone is poor and in need and, maybe even a net drain on society, does not mean they’re not productive. It doesn’t mean they aren’t working. It doesn’t mean they aren’t “entitled” to a life of basic necessities.

      Are you entitled to all the fruits of your labor? Sure. I guess. But we, as a society, have determined that you have an obligation to give some of that up to help those who have less. This falls under our aforementioned “gray area.”

      Unlike the lazy class,

      Screw that.

      Just because someone is poor and in need does not mean they’re lazy.

      It means they have shitty luck. Or they’re, unfortunately, not intelligent. Or they lack education. Or they lack opportunity. Or they can’t find work.

      Are some lazy? Sure. Just like many wealthy people are lazy.

      I’m arguably the laziest person you’ve ever known. That’s really not an exaggeration. Ask Buck. I am profoundly and impressively lazy. I am lazy on a level that boggles the mind. But I am also extremely lucky: I am a tall, thin, reasonably attractive, heterosexual white male, born to a reasonably wealthy family, with a paid-for college, with a paid-for MBA, with a (if I may say so) pretty damned good brain in my head, who was born in America. I hit the goddamn jackpot. And here I am spending time that I should be spending doing work arguing with you.

      These “lazy class” are almost all harder working than me. They just don’t have my luck.

      I’ve never seen anyone work as hard as the Mexican day laborers I hire for my yard. And I pay them with money I “earned” sitting in an air conditioned office and arguing with people over the internet for my entertainment.

      The maid who cleans my house every other week busts her ass all day for what I mean in an hour (I’m on salary, but, figure it’s about right). And she’s in there scrubbing my toilets while I sit in a cushy office chair.

      This “lazy” argument is a tired old ploy. Yes, some are lazy. Maybe many. But, and I have no possible way of verifying this, I’d be willing to bet they’re exactly as lazy as the general population. You have nothing to prove that they are poor and needy because they’re lazy, nor that they’re lazy because they receive handouts. You are ASSUMING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. and it’s bullshit. Total and absolute bullshit.

      the productive class doesn’t feel that anyone owes them anything, other than what they have worked to achieve.”

      Your so-called productive class is a myth. To suggest that the poor and those on welfare aren’t productive ignores my gardeners, my kids’ nanny, my cleaning woman, the greeter at your local walmart, bus boys, waiters, et cetera.

      What you mean is those who earn enough that society has determined that we should take a portion of their earnings away and redistribute it to the needy.

      Of course they don’t feel they that anyone owes them anything. No one does owe them anything. They are the ones who owe. They – we – owe society a tithe for the benefit of our fellow man.

      • To quote the Ronald…….” there you go again”. You know good and well that I did not mean the yard folks, the greeters and such…..at least they are out working. However, if you are paying cash under the table….to your cleaning woman, your yard person and, I am betting you are….you are now part of the problem. ( If you are not, then accept my apologies for suggesting that you are ).

        and we will disagree on the word tithe. we owe nothing to our “fellow man” unless we choose to owe something..

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          On the matter of “obligations” of society or imposed by society, a critical question should be addressed.

          Mathius accurately described the societal view, and thus cultural norm, that the rich should help out the poor. Here is the question.

          WHERE did this societal norm come from? What is its source, how did it develop. What caused mankind to move from individual or family duty, based on personal relationships, to societal duty based on income.

          • Mr. Citizen,

            As we approach the 4 o’clock mark here, my extra-busy time approaches. So, I’ll just respond quickly. Apologies that it’s not the full answer you deserve.

            Noblesse Oblige (and all the history behind it).

            To your second question: It was the realization that humans are human and should be treated as such. We are not animals. We have minds and our lives have intrinsic value which we, as members of a “civilized” society have an obligation to help.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Sorry, but I think you missed the mark. Think upon this while sipping your cocktail this evening, sitting on the porch watching your gardener working his tail off.

              When did this realization occur? Who realized this and how did they convince others?

              I offer you two potential sources. One is the fact that much of the world developed under some kind of Monarchy or totalitarian state. Once we became more agrarian. It would be a natural evolution of this arrangement that moved from the King being responsible to those who had money and power, in short those who were king like.

              The other is religious dogma. Although this begs the question as to where the religions got the idea. Christianity in particular, laid out tenants about charity and helping the less fortunate. Of course the irony is that the left, who chastises the concept of God and Christian religion, wants to borrow Christianities “obligation” of the rich to look out for the poor to rationalize their own socialist dogma.

              It is a fact that when one group of people decide what another group of people MUST DO or have some penalty imposed upon them that the brotherhood of man is damaged. A moral obligation cannot be enforced with force, without destroying the cultural values which created the obligation in the first place.

              The Rich in this country used to give great amounts to all kinds of charities and benevolent endeavors. I see less of this when the people start turning on the rich as some kind of pariah. It appears to me that many on the left have forgotten that moral obligations cut both ways. This truth is captured by the saying: “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.

    • For BF, JAC, and GMan, who specifically voice this opinion, “The “entitlements” the government promises to people are nothing more than theft.

      From their point of view, true. Addressed above.

      The government steals it from the hard working members of society and gives it to the lazy members of society.

      I’m not convinced you’re accurately speaking for the three of them. While, of course, some percentage are lazy, I think their point is that the recipients aren’t entitled to receive the “stolen” property (ie money) of the donors. I am not aware of them having explicitly stating the opinion that, just because someone is a net-recipient of the “welfare state” they are necessarily lazy.

      I think a better encapsulation of their view(s) might be: “The government steals it from hard certain members of society and redistributes it to other members of society.” This, regardless of your implied value-judgement of their work-ethics, is still evil and immoral in their books. You don’t have to ice the cake with an unfounded and judgmental opinion that they’re lazy.

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel

    Are you agreeing with the idea that “rights” are not natural and simply social constructs?

    If so then how can can you give up a “natural right of independence”?

    • No sir….I actually left a couple of lines of text out that addressed this….the crux of my “wall o’ text” was that when one becomes dependent upon **insert word**, you have actually voluntarily given or perhaps diluted your “natural right of independence.” This does not mean you do not have it…it means you gave it away. It does not mean that you cannot get it back. It is there for the taking.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13thecolonel

        OK. I have a better understanding now.

        I am not so sure we have a natural right to “independence”. Party because that word has multiple contexts. As in pursuing our own life as we deem proper, OK. As in living on our own, not so much.

        A “Natural Right” you would think can be defended at the Metphysical level. That is it can be shown to be a universal truth, a standard which explains how the universe works.

        In this regard I have come up with ONE and ONLY ONE Natural Right This is the Core principle from which all others should be derived.

        Man has the Right to pursue his existence according to his nature.

        This opens a can of worms, because we have to identify “man’s nature”, but I think it captures the reality of all universal law regarding existence of any identity.

  5. “that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

    What does this mean?We all know that they are not out of the box guarantees. Nor, had they been enumerated before in the prior three millennia in such a straightforward manner.

    I’ve given a lot of thought to this over the past 52 years since my superlative 11th and 12th grade American History class. I think it plays into my general view of the relationship between God and man. God “gives” us life, God “gives” us reason, God “gives” us free will. God “gives” us the knowledge of good and evil. God “gives” us forgiveness.

    Now, lets get to what God expects. God, I believe, expects us to use the gifts he has given us to come as close to him and to perfection as we, imperfect creatures, can. Along the way, we must mature. Part of that process is acknowledging the things that Jefferson laid out. A man or mankind seeking perfection will acknowledge the value of life, everyone’s life. He will acknowledge the need for liberty not just for himself but everyone and finally, he will work to achieve a state of happiness which requires that he desire the happiness of others.

    This leads to a problem. One cannot have true life, liberty and happiness unless and until all others have it. Without that guarantee, you, personally can have no guarantee. The Nazi’s and Communists, as bright and “advanced” as they were would take all three from you because they saw them as something man granted man. They were not innate.

    Problem on problem, to keep the Nazi’s and Communists at bay, we must educate the people they appeal to in their innate rights. Now we get to the how. Imposition? Gifts? Manna from man? I submit none of this can work. The recognition of these “rights” can only come the way they came to us and other modern Western thinkers using logic and the principles of religion.

    I make no pretensions to be a philosopher nor a theologian but in what we have here in America, and what Europe has as a result of what they HAVE LEARNED FROM US! Yep, they got the idea from our guys could not implement it on their own, is a direct result of following the basic teachings of that philosopher, Jesus of Nazareth. That itinerant preacher was the guy who started the concept that all men are in fact equal. Not only did he start the idea but spread it throughout the world like nothing before or since.

    To bring it home, I feel the mistake of modern western liberalism is that we want to grant “happiness” to people who do not understand its relationship to participating in a society. Class warfare is an excellent example. Yes, the Goldmine-Sacks folks may be swimming in money but should we envy this? What does the envy do to our happiness? they, in turn may be greedy but what does that greed do to their happiness? In either event their envy or greed would take from someone’s liberty. Taken to their logical (and historical) extreme they would deprive us of life too!

    Enough, my head hurts.

    For all the atheists and agnostics out there (more agnostic than me at least) I give you a biblical quote regarding the above in relation to “rational'” non-religious man.

    “It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”.

    You can substitute atheist/agnostic for “rich man” and true knowledge for “gates of heaven”. It CAN be done but it is NOT easy.

  6. And………………where is the progression of my raptors…..you left them out this time….or did the Red Bull force them to run away…..you probably took their hats as well.

    But you know what? This debate is presenting both sides of thought without name calling and such. I like it.

  7. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Alexis de Tocqueville wrote way back in 1835 in his books “Democracy in America” a very simple concept. “Once the people realize that they can vote (getting goodies and entitlements) and the politicians discover that they can promise all thos (goodies and entitlements) America will be finished as a republic, much less a democracy. The politicians will gain perpetual power and the people will drain the resources.

    Note….I did paraphrase a bit, and the words in the parenthesis are in line with this discussion. He used different words and I did not want to go to the two volumes and try and find the exact quote.

    Even though we have been in the progressive world since Grover Cleveland was president, and TR another progressives and, neither one had a disdain for the people and the concept of right and wrong. Wilson was a racist bastard, who was so smart he absolutely wished Congress would become a non entity. He would just pass down his edicts and then they’d be administered by NOT the States but an administrative districts. The huge shift of social engineering regardless of FDR, Truman came in the 70’s, regardless of who was in power. Johnson in his “Great Society” set it in motion with the laws passed only by Republican party votes the society that we are battling with today and is bringing us to our knees. Since the late 60’s most people are treading water and slowly sinking creating the everwidening gap between the top and everyone else……the concept that really got a lot of traction in the 70’s was we can just pass another law to fix anything that we perceive as a wrong or thet we do not like. Throughout our history there was a ratio of 1.5 lawyers/1000 people. Since 1970 that has over the years grown to over 4 lawyers per 1000 people. Are the people just that much more lawless or are there just so many laws being enacted to change behavior, like 40000/year by our elected and unelected officials……I’ve always looked at lawyers in the same light as car salesmen. Lawyers DO NOT enhance communication and solve problems, they obstruct communication and exploit problem exaserbating them to get more fees. It is not in their self interest to end the problem. That sure is a generalization but of all the lawyers I have known over the years or have had business with, only ONE (1) had really tried to do the right thing, not only for the client, me, but was actually the best outcome also for the defendent (ex).

    I’ll put this comment here instead of trying to fit it back up where it belongs with FDR. The whole problem was the world was trying to deal with a huge shift from mostly agrarian to a technically based economy. Personal mechanization was rampant especially with items like automobiles. The industrial revolution brought huge inovations, yes, like steel and building huge infrastructure things. Railroad, Ships bridges etc, but theshift after WWI went very much toward personal consumption The more his government fiddled around trying to solve a problem that all the smart people barely had a concept of what needed to be done, which was nothing and let 150M people sort it out, they tried this tried that creating more problems. The US was just a deep into the depression in 1940 as it was in 1932. It took WWII to pretty much wipe out the past and start fresh but on a different plane. We are in that phase here and have been for almost two decades. The more the government tries to do, the more stagnant we become. Just look at Japan….they are almost in their 4th decade of stagnation, when in the early 80’s they were the country to emminate. They were easy to beat because they had such a mindset and thought process that if it works well here it must be good their. They were not adaptable. The more we become of one mind and enact group think processes, we will continue down the path of stagnation.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    Aside

    Who is the PRIVILEGED ones?

    It seems that Mr. Obama’s daughter was caught smoking pot at a party of rich kids while on their vacation. But here is the ELITIST result.

    The Secret Service got her out of the house just before the cops came to bust up the party. Govt. paid employees were used to hide a crime and obstruct the police from catching the criminal. Guess it pays of your name is Obama or Clinton.

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    Economist John Maynard Keynes, ironically a proponent of inflationary policies, famously noted that “by a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Good grief man, have you no knowledge of history at all?

    http://library.columbia.edu/locations/rbml/units/carnegie/andrew.html

    Add to this the Rockefeller and Ford charities

    Then add the thousands of wealthy donors who support communities across the country. Libraries, event centers, public tv and radio, concert halls, sports teams, soup kitchens, goodwill and salavation army, etc, etc..

    • Charity did a great job before the government got involved. Being an old timer with links to people in the Social Service community stretching back to the 1930’s (when it got its foothold) a large part of what you have today is a direct result of trying to make people feel that Welfare in its many forms IS NOT CHARITY hence the word entitlement.

      Anybody with relatives who were young in the depression, if you talked to them about the issue told you point blank that handouts were NOT welcome. It took CCC and WPA jobs to make it OK to get a government check. My labor for your money.

      Since then we have deliberately clouded the issue. We make it more than OK to take the check with no strings. Now, we are ENTITLED to it!

      Look at the mass outcry when Clinton’s (really Gingrich’s) welfare reform tried to re-introduce the work requirement. It worked like gangbusters but what was one of the very first things that Obama surreptitiously did away with. Go ahead, ask folks, they do not even know its gone. We New Yorker’s saw it sooner. As Charlie might say, (A big Jill supporter now) my stories are a bit anecdotal but my long term welfare recipient tenants did not believe how much better off they did when Guilliani started NY’s workfare program.

  11. A good read on what the SOCIALIST in the FDR administration thought of hand outs vs. hand ups.

    http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/great-depression/harry-hopkins-and-work-relief-during-the-great-depression/

  12. I came across an article on this very subject (entitlements, namely food stamps). It’s obvious where Mathius gets his information, because it’s far from correct. The article I’ll link to also has numerous links and videos to support what’s in the article. From the article:

    The work requirement is simple, one must be working at least 20 hours a week or be enrolled in state-approved job training or education course. In Georgia, who initiated the work requirement in three counties to start with and are expanding it to 24 counties, they can also volunteer at a state-sanctioned non-profit or charity, in order to meet the requirement to continue receiving food stamps, otherwise known as SNAP.

    Since the initial pilot program started in January, the numbers for the first three beta-test counties are shocking as there was a nearly 60 percent decrease in food stamp recipients.

    Via AJC:”Since the rules were enacted in January, the number of these food stamp recipients has dropped from 6,000 to 2,400,” in the three counties where the work requirement has been reinstated.

    AND:

    Maine is another powerful example in favor of work over dependency. Similarly to Kansas, Maine saw a major decline in its caseload after instituting a work requirement. Within the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its caseload of able-bodied adults receiving food stamps plunged by 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.
    http://allnewspipeline.com/Say_Goodbye_To_Your_EBT_Cards.php

    The bleeding heart Liberal nonsense don’t fly in the face of facts. While helping those in need s admirable, it’s clear that the need isn’t near as great as the Left wants everyone to believe, and they will never admit it.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    It is a fact that when one group of people decide what another group of people MUST DO or have some penalty imposed upon them that the brotherhood of man is damaged.

    ::Citation needed::

    ANY BOOK ON WORLD HISTORY. THE NIGHTLY NEWS.

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    A moral obligation cannot be enforced with force, without destroying the cultural values which created the obligation in the first place.

    ::Citation needed::

    SAME AS ABOVE. ALONG WITH A LITTLE SOMETHING FROM MY PAPPY; “USE YOUR HEAD FOR SOMETHING BESIDES A HAT RACK.” iN OTHER WORDS, APPLY SOME LOGICAL THOUGHT TO THE QUESTION AND COMPARE TO HISTORY.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Of course the irony is that the left, who chastises the concept of God and Christian religion

    OBJECTION!

    I – personally – may chastise the concept of a God or Christian religion, but as a group, generally, we chastise the concept of a God or Christian religion IN GOVERNMENT.

    FAIR ENOUGH. I SUPPOSE THERE MIGHT BE A HANDFUL ON THE “LEFT” WHO DO NOT. HOWEVER, IF YOU SPEND A FEW HOURS SCANNING LEFT WING BLOG SITES YOU WILL SOON COME TO THINK I MIGHT BE RIGHT.

    I WILL ADD THOUGH THAT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE OPPOSITION I SEE FROM MANY ON THE LEFT REGARDING RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT STEMS FROM A BASIC DISDAIN FOR RELIGION ITSELF.

    • Matt is too young, has not lived through the gradual de-emphasis of the value of religion. Funny you should mention it. Caught an old Twilight Zone episode this AM about a former Nazi going back 17 years later to Dachau to relive his former glories. Was confronted by the “Ghosts” of his victims, tried and sentenced to insanity. Several times during the show, “God” was referenced.Then in the epilogue, Rod Serling himself mentioned God. I wonder what a 20 or 30 something, watching the show for the first time, , paying attention would think about those references. They were meaningful to me back in ’62 and now, I doubt that a modern young person, if questioned, would even remember the word was mentioned.

      While I think of Bill O’Reilly as a blowhard, one thing he has repeatedly said is worth remembering and applauding. If nothing else, think of Jesus and the Gospels as philosophy. I argue (as above) time and time again that Christianity started the process which led to the enlightenment. Only, in Western Europe did this take hold.

      My rationalist, atheistic, agnostic friends say to me all the time that they came to their morality by reason. Pure reason and logic. What they seem to fail to understand is that they were raised in a culture where the cultural norms were established by Christianity. So, their logic, their reason, is based on the words in the book. They may never have read them, their teachers may never have read them but I suspect their teachers, teachers did. Their “philosophy” is contaminated without them even knowing it.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Stephen

        I agree that religion is one branch of philosophy I agree that philosophers sometimes mixed concepts from religion and new ideas they were pondering on.

        However, it is factually wrong to state that Christianity was the source of the Enlightenment thinking. It has an influence but the Enlightenment was largley about rediscovering the history of Greece, Rome, Persia, Asseria and Egypt.

        Which brings me to the next point, one most Christians will have heart burn over. The “morality” of the Jewish and Christian religions existed BEFORE these religions surface in history. These religions in fact “borrow” from prior religions and cultural standards within the “near orient” or what we call the “middle east”. As Christianity spread it then absorbed certain moral and cultural norms of other groups in Europe. Becoming the religion we know today. Or the one we knew as children anyway.

        I do agree with you that many people who claim to have come to their morality via REASON alone are ignoring the influence of what they have been exposed to from childhood. No doubt that Christianity had a large influence on individual and societal norms in this country. But those standards do not come from religion alone. They include a mix of religious and non religious. They represent a melting pot of concepts dating back as far as we have evidence of humans living together in large numbers.

        Now I want to address a comment made here a few times last week. The idea that “morality” is being lost. Sorry, but morality is not being lost. There is always a morality that exists for any given society. That morality may not be what you or I would support and it may not even be conducive to a civilized society, per our criteria, but it is a morality.

        The real discussion should be about WHICH morality, which means we have to first determine that which IS MORAL. This is where REASON has a required seat at the table and not just religious dogma. Use of objective reasoning may conclude that some religious standards are in fact moral. But there needs to be some process for evaluating all suggested standards, rules, or norms to determine if they are in fact moral. To determine what moral even means in the first place.

        Personally, I don’t see a great erosion in morality in the USA. The key moral standards still apply. What I see is loss of blind adherence to Religious dogma, Christianity in particular. This is obviously causing some great stress among our citizens.

        What is more disturbing to me is the apparent loss or reduction in critical thinking. This after decades of large scale education of the masses. I think our bigger problem is the erosion and sometimes complete lack of CIVILITY and MANNERS.

        Combine lack of critical thinking, meaning greater reliance on emotional response, with loss of civility and good manners. You get what we see daily on the news and in our streets. And, the internet is playing a large role in this erosion as well. Bad behavior and bankrupt thinking can find support and confirmation on the web, if one looks for the right echo chamber. This then spills into society in the form of lunatics with attitude.

        Now this is not to say that moral standards are not under attack and in some cases being lost, or at least weakened. Only that I do not see that as the greatest problem to this date. On the moral front my biggest concern is that the outright immoral behavior of our political and business leaders is being rationalized and thus becoming acceptable. When those considered leaders act this way and get away with it, the population will almost certainly follow. Case in point, since Bill’s public outing in the 90’s our young people now believe oral sex is “not sex”. Worse yet, they seem to be developing a moral relativism that is similar to the rationalizations used by Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with many other “opinion leaders”. Dem and Republican.

        Another case in point. Where are all the politicians and bankers who enabled the financial crash of 2007 today?? They should be in jail or looking for new jobs, sweeping parking lots and shoveling bulldookey from the barn.

        While this latter example would lead one to say “aha, see I told you morals were being lost”, I point out that such behavior among “leaders” has been around a long time. In our case beginning not long after the country was founded. Which begs the question as to whether morality is being lost or was lost, or perhaps has not changed at all.

        • Have company the next few days would like to follow up . Generally I agree, the thing with Christianity is the influence it had over an incredibly broad spectrum. Greek and Roman philosophers whom I had to study in college spoke to a small educated group. Christianity as those old sand and sandal dramas of the past showed spoke to Kings and Slaves. That was new and unique. Now getting from 33AD to let us say 1920 was a very bumpy road and the religion(s) was perverted often.

          Agree completely about morality. It changes with time. There was the Roman Empire Morality, The Goth Morality, The Golden Horde Morality, The British Empire morality and or course the Nazi and Communist morality. The moral relativism you speak of is being taught in our schools. Times are bad and getting worse.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    The Rich in this country used to give great amounts to all kinds of charities and benevolent endeavors.

    I think you view history with rose colored glasses.

    Do you imagine that the era of the great charitable wealthy was somehow better on the poor than the modern day? When, pray tell, was this magical heyday? Was it the ’10’s? ’20’s? 1800’s? 1980’s?

    I ADDRESSED PART OF THIS ALREADY, ALONG WITH SK’S LINKS. I WANT TO ADDRESS THE LAST PART ABOUT WHETHER THE POOR ARE DOING BETTER. THIS IS YOUR CLASSIC CHANGING OF THE ARGUMENT. MINE, THE RICH USED TO GIVE GREAT AMOUNTS TO CHARITY. YOURS, PROVE IT. MINE, HERE IS THE PROOF. YOURS, ARE THE POOR BETTER OFF TODAY OR BACK THEN?

    NOW THAT ASIDE, THERE IS NO WAY TO COMPARE THE CONDITION OF THE POOR THEN TO TODAY UNLESS YOU PLACE THEIR CONDITION IN THE CONTEXT OF ALL CITIZENS THEN AND NOW. NEAR AS I CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRULY POOR THEN AND NOW IS ABOUT THE SAME, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE CHANGE IN THE LIVING CONDITIONS OF EVERYONE. WE ARE ALL BETTER OFF TODAY IN TERMS OF OUR LIVING STANDARD THAN THOSE OF THE OLDEN DAYS.

    ON THE OTHER HAND, BEING POOR IN THOSE DAYS WAS A MISERABLE EXISTENCE COMPARED TO WHAT MANY POOR OF TODAY SUFFER. SO MAYBE THEY HAD IT WORSE. ONE THING IS FOR SURE. THEY COULD NOT LIVE ON CHARITY ALONE AND HAD TO WORK TO GET OUT OF THEIR PREDICAMENT.

    FOR EXAMPLE, PICTURES OF THE OLD IRISH SLUMS DURING THE GREAT MIGRATION SHOW HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE STACKED IN BOARDING HOUSES. WE DON’T SEE THAT TODAY VERY OFTEN, OR AT LEAST ON A LARGE SCALE. I ASSURE YOU IT STILL HAPPENS BUT IS USUALLY EXTENDED FAMILY IN A HOUSE. THE REASON IS NOT THE MONEY BUT ZONING LAWS.

    • My late father used to say, “we have the richest poor people in the world”.

      I am willing to bet that his position was based on being the oldest son at home in a family of six when his father died in 1932. My father was 15. Kindest most gentle man you would ever want to meet who would give you the shirt off his back but would probably go to war to prevent the government from taking his shirt and giving it to someone else.

      I remember around 1965 when all the war on poverty crap started and we were watching the 7PM news. Two black ladies were on the tube bitching that they would never demean themselves to scrub other peoples floors. Dad looked at me with fire in his eyes. At that point, Mom was making extra money by scrubbing other peoples floors! dad just looked at me and said something I’ll never forget, “No work is demeaning or beneath you.”

  17. Another great example of Progressive Liberal ideology. Control, control, control, even for a home owner after a flood.

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-permit-flooding-victims/

    Yes, its all controlled by Democrats.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Bend,_Indiana

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      This kind of requirement exists almost everywhere. Even in deep RED Idaho.

      So you can blame “progressive” thinking but not just Democrats.

    • Yes and winter is coming fast. Any building contractor worth his salt can build a house without even a set of plans. All he needs is a rough sketch of what the owner wants. The city if it had any brains would wave the fees and place an inspector’s office in the middle of the flooded area. All the owner should have to do is register and provide an inspection schedule. Houses that are totally destroyed should be rebuilt on a raised foundation. If the house has only a few inches of water or a couple of feet, then they need to gutted, insulation removed, maybe the lower half of the siding and sheathing replaced. Floors need to ripped up but joist will probably still be good. Spray everything with bleach to kill mold and start rebuilding immediately from the outside in. You can live with an unfinished interior if it is not done by winter but you need shelter and heat. I know because we did it. I slept in the basement for a year when we built my parents house.

      Where did our pioneering spirit go?

      • The pioneering spirit is still there, but it is usually killed by the voters who don’t understand what freedom means. This is an example of typical brainwashed pro government ideology. As JAC stated, it’s normal everywhere. One really don’t own private property, one simply lives on some land rented from the government. Property taxes, school taxes, permits for this and permits for that, their isn’t any damn private ownership of property in most areas. We are no longer a free nation, we have voted that away over the last two Centuries. The founders saw this coming.

        In addition, my opinion is we all have far too much government in our lives. We shouldn’t have to pay to build a house or a garage on our own property. We should not have property tax that when hard times hit the State can take ones property and home. It has gone beyond out of control. We don’t need all of it, in it’s current form.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      This an actual true story from New Brunswick Canada. There was an obscure movie made about this a few years ago…..needed to build a single story house due to his ailing wife…..started building with his own materials. Fined fot not having a permit….he went and got one and contuined building…..fined again because he didn’t have plans, yet he had built many homes before. Fined for not having government stamped lumber, his own even though it was better than most inpected lumber. Trusses….were built like they were on ships. Not with the light, metal nailed plates….see it and weep

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/all-i-wanted-to-do-is-build-a-house/article4346687/

      The inspector was just following the book of rules and was just a bureaucrat and knew nothing about construction…..as the film starts out the man had some strawberry fields to get some extra money. Picked the berries and tried to deliver them to the distributer who had been buying berries from him for years…..sorry, can buy them…why not? a law was passed that the berries have to be delivered in a refrigerated truck. I don’t have that type of truck, the berries were just picked…..sorry its the law.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        please forgive the typos….typing in dim light and offest fingers…if you saw the text before I edited it, you’d think I was writing/speaking in tongues.

      • About 12 years ago, my son’s and I build a barn/shop/garage. It is 28′ x 48′ w/ a full clear span loft. I drew up the plans and took them to the planning commission for a permit. That is when the fun started. I learned I had to have an engineer approve the plans, stamped and signed, that I had to meet certain roof loads, wind loads and earthquake requirements. Now to begin with the barn was designed with 2×6 walls, trusses using glued and nailed plywood gussets, a laminate central beam of 2×12 and plywood all glued and nailed. The planned foundation was a slab with 12″ wide 18″ footers and a 5″ floor.

        I was told I had to meet a 20″ snow load and 80 mph winds. Now I grew up in N. IL with frequent thunderstorms, tornado, heavy drifting snow, etc. My Dad was a contractor. We built farm buildings among other things and often repaired storm damage. I the 12 yrs I had been living in CA at that time we had had a maximum of 4″ of snow and only one or two memorable wind storms. Nothing like IL. I had also only felt one small quake in that time that was 100 mil away. Living on rock on the ridge above the S. Fork of the American River, quakes are not a problem.

        I hired one engineer who threw out the trusses and designed in a purlin which meant I lost the clear span loft, plus the weight of the roof would now be transferred to the loft floor which would need beefing up. It already as 2x12s on 12″ centers so could carry 125 lbs/sq ft. I also had to widen my footers to 18″ and deepen them. Hard to do when we were already down to rock and thus unnecessary. I fired him and hired another engineer. He basically approved the plans but would not approve the trusses. For the central beam he wanted a 6″ x 15″ x 48″ glulam. No my initial instructions to him was that the construction would be by myself and my 2 boys, no heavy equipment. I asked how I was supposed to raise the beam. His answer was a crane. (I’ve set 12″ x 48′ I-beams 16′ feet in the air with only a boom on the back of a pickup.) So I fired him.

        I went back to the planning commission to try again. That is when I learned that ag buildings only required a $25 permit and no inspections. I whipped out the $25 and said “Done”.

        We built the barn and if we ever get a massive windstorm, I will be standing when the house blows away. The trusses were exceedingly strong. You could pick them up flat, tip them over and there was no give. Most nail plate trusses fall apart if handled the way we handled these.

      • Dad took no s–t of anyone. There have been times that we moved into a bigger town with union crews. When they came nosing around, and started making trouble, he would pick up his hammer and say, “You and whose army?”

        I have 2 brothers. We all worked construction growing up. I have always maintained that if a family member lost a house in a storm, that I would pack my camping gear and tools and head back to the Midwest. We would clear the site and start raising a new house immediately. Permits be damned.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          When I was stationed in the mountains of West Virginia, there were occassional house fires. We as the local Federal authority handled all the fire fighting in the George Washington National Forest. Within days a family that lost their house had a new one constructed on the site. Not only did local’s help extinguish the blaze, but they put up the family, local mill owners provided lumber and there would be a house raising as the case may be, People always had some extra furniture laying around and the house would also be furnished. No permits were ever issued.

          When I restored my previous house the permit process was easy. Just expensive. I never provided any plans, I just said that I was restoring in kind also avoiding any historical society restrictions. Plus there was no photographs of what the house looked like in the 1800’s, so who was to say….The problem lay with the inspectors. Each charging, to the city coffers a fee, but I NEVER in 4 years saw any of them actually inspect the work. They saw who was doing the work, and usually just chatted in the driveway. Ist off I do not know many builders who are experts in all the regulations and also the skills to do heating and cooling, electrical, gas, structual engineering, themselves, you name it. They bring in subs. So how can ONE inspector be an expert in all these disciplines…not a chance.

          Like health inspectors of restaurants. One time they’ll ding you on one thing, then next time ding you on something that passed previously. Or different inspectors go after areas that they are expert at. It keeps one quessiing as to what will happen the next inspection. Totally random

  18. Dale A Albrecht says:

    In this topic of “entitlements” the discussion has raged about what is an enitilement, what is an earned payment by paid into contracts etc. What is right and what is wrong. Below I pasted an article that I believe puts all the rest to shame. That is legislators and their prefered union buddies within the government providing government services to the people. Writing their own checks, writing their own benefits, writing their own “entitlements” Here I’ll say entitlement, because did they actually provide the service as stipulated by laws or destroyed the ability of the government to provide those services because of laws enacted by themselves saying their pay or benefits can not in any way be reduced or delayed etc. These self serving actions by government is bankrupting the system, if not already done so…..even FDR said that unionization of public employees is a conflict of interest and is not to be allowed. it took the “great” JFK to enact the law so as to curry union favor and payback during his election to POTUS.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438848/illinois-bruce-rauner-democrats-fiscal-crisis-pensions-taxes-deficits-bankruptcy?target=author&tid=903126

    • Everything the Liberal Democrats have ever touched has turned to shit. Idiot people are too stupid to see it.

    • Dad thought about bidding on a couple of state (IL) construction jobs back in the ’60s. I helped him read through the contracts. The prevailing wage clause disqualified him since he was a self employed non-union contractor. The stated purpose of the the contracts was to help the local community but no local contractor could bid on the contracts because the area was a rural farming area and farmers do not get or pay union scale. Not only did you have to pay union scale but you had to pay it 12 months before and 6 months after the contract. There were also lots of other rules. A laborer could not move a truck ten feet because that would make him an equipment operator. One of the jobs he was trying to bid on was installing a cyclone fence around a new local sewer plant. Any farmer knows how to build a fence but per state rules was not allowed to do it on this job.

      Chicago and a few of the other big cities rule Illinois. The rest are just along for the ride.

      CA is not any better. The coastal cities rule the state. The unions are too powerful to buck as Arnold found out. Hence the move to create the state of Jefferson from the northern counties.

      • I left NYC’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development after 21 years in 1989. Next day I started working for a Bronx developer. While at HPD in 1989 we were paying in excess of $ 80,000 to renovate a three room apartment in a vacant building with intact exterior walls and solid foundations. Many of these buildings were partially occupied when we took them for taxes. When I walked across the street in ’89 my boss bought partially vacant buildings and renovated them for less than $ 35,000 per unit. The city by vacating the property lapsed the C of O . By keeping a handful of tenants in the building we kept the C of O and built to the original standard when the building was constructed. Smart, no?

        • A common trick here is if you want to build a new house on the site of an old one, leave one wall standing and it becomes a remodel instead of new construction. Much cheaper since permits for a new house can run tens of thousands of dollars.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            That was a trick used in Cape Cod also. Left the old house standing, and built the entirely new Hampton’s style mansion around it, then the old one is erased.

            In Italy if a house is incomplete, ie never finished, no property taxes were levied. You usually will find somewhere an exterior wall that is not finished. It could be as simple as not putting stucco over the stone leaving a sort of rustic look. But the law is the law.

            • This is a well known tactic to use in Mexico….if you have been there reently, you will see that practically all the buildings…even the modern ones are “unfinished.” You will pay zero property tax until it is finished. Two examples to give you…..one personal and one commercial.

              General Motors of Mexico has several locations. Each location has an unfinished building “attached” to its main building at each location. Not one single location of GM in Mexico pays property taxes.

              As has been reported here before, we have a ranch in San Miguel Allende. We raise horses, Alfalfa, and Asparagus. We have one unfinished building on the property….have had for over ten years….we do not pay property tax.

              Pretty simple.

  19. Liberal extortion as plain as day!

    http://conservativetribune.com/truckers-bad-news-obama/

    • Several years ago CA regulated that all diesel engines needed to be upgraded. This was based upon a study by CARB (CA air resources board). After it was all done and implemented we found out the the Ph. D. who did the study got his degree mail order and that many of his findings were bogus. No matter. Anyway farmers and truckers and construction companies all had to meet the standard. Many small businesses had to sell their equipment out of state and buy new or do an expensive engine swap. Later we learned that one could pay a daily fine and continue to use the old equipment. The fine was cheaper to pay since it only applied to days that the equipment was used. So many of the larger construction companies that had lawyers and could figure this out paid the daily use fine. So much for the altruistic CA environmentalists. It is all about control.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      What is so sad about the whole thing and also reading the attached articles, it seems that most of these regulations are coming directly from the WH to the agencies. They become defacto law, I thought that Congress passes laws and the WH faithfully administers the laws…..it takes a very diligent congress to wade through these “regulations” and do something about it. Unfortunately the WH will veto the law sent to him undoing his over-reach and the bipartisan congress will not over ride said veto. What a Catch-22.

      • Congress needs to have veto power over executive regulations.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Yes, like a total veto, with NO counter move by the POTUS causing and endless chase like a dog and its tail….and it not be by some super majority, but by the number of votes it takes to get through congress to begin with. A simple majority.

          • Dale….does that not render the separation of branches a moot point? Why not just simply do not do it….as a State. There is no enforcement out there.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              Sir…when the POTUS can ignore a law he signed and swore to uphold, and or modify it at a whim without congressional review and sign off…isn’t the whole process moot anyway? Seems to me we can dispense with congress entirely and it’s costs.

              question….isn’t any contract entered into involuntarily, by threat, coersion and blackmail, example a stoppage of services that are required by law, if you don’t sign our raise, ie education…. considered technically null and void? Isn’t that precisely what the unions do with government services, ie NEA.

              As Texas has consistantly proven…..stay away from government funding and you remain free.

  20. G Man……may I have another thread please…entitled ” Estate Taxes aka The Death Tax”

%d bloggers like this: