Law is a very simple matter: it's a statement of what justifications will be used to unleash the force of the State. Legislation -- the process by which law is made -- varies from place to place, but here in the United States it's supposed to be bounded by Constitutional grants of power and the rights of the individual. No legislature is supposed to pass laws that exceed its Constitutional powers, or that invade, nullify, or infringe any man's rights.
The whole "general welfare" or "universal benefit" idea you've been trumpeting is an attempt to circumvent those protections. It's been used that way for thousands of years, it will likely be used for thousands more, and it will never amount to anything else. It's the argument for activist government, a State that decides "what's good for you" and them rams it down your throat. It's the argument of the social engineers, the Left, the Marxists and fascists.
Let's imagine for a moment that someone could prove, by incontrovertible means, that everyone would benefit from the execution of all Muslims. Well, everyone who was left, that is. Would that make it acceptable for any legislature to pass a law decreeing their execution? I recall that the Nazis did something along those lines. They had quite a popular support base, too.
Or how about this one: Since essentially all violent crime and crime against property is committed by males between the ages of 14 and 40, why not pass a law that deeds $100 billion a year to a study of how to pre-identify potential criminals in those age ranges, so that they can be incarcerated and reeducated before they commit their offenses against the rest of us? I mean, if it worked, it would solve the crime problem forever, wouldn't it? No criminals ===> no crime! Of course, the young men thus identified and incarcerated for psychological reprogramming wouldn't actually have done anything yet, nor could we prove that they ever would, but that's just a detail, a mere blot on this otherwise admirable "universal benefit."
Still with me? Then try this: How about a law that steals some modest amount of everyone's income, to confer universal education on the children of the nation? Amazing! Buying education for one's children! Who'd have thought of it? Oh, only everyone who's lived since the birth of Christ, but we can pass over that for now. And as to the actual "education" aspects of it, it turns out that there's no way to guarantee that. All the State can really do is expropriate us and turn the proceeds over to "educators," who are thereafter indemnified against any consequences of their decisions and actions. Meanwhile, parents who could have bought their children a real education, using their market power to see to it that the school they chose delivered the goods, are deprived of some thousands of dollars per year for government-run schools that indoctrinate the young in political correctness and foster every kind of vice and crime.
The State is an instrument of coercion. Coercion is only good for a very few legitimate things, and all of them have to do with the pursuit, apprehension, and punishment of real criminals: those who have invaded our lives, liberties, or properties. Quoth Frederic Bastiat:
You say, "There are persons who lack education," and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning that shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by the government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder, violating liberty and property. [from The Law, 1850.]
That's a sentence of death for the "universal benefit" notion of education... especially in light of the colossal failures of government-run schools.
Finally, we have the following:
You are either very Naive, or being very disingenuous in argument.I'm truly sorry to see that, you sound like an otherwise well educated individual.
Too late, Bubba. Your colors are already on display.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
However, your comment:
"..At no time did I say that "that there should be no need to
use force to insure compliance to law."
Let's read your original comment again:
"..Think hard about this: if some proposed "benefit" or "standard"
really was to the benefit of everyone, why would the government
have to make it compulsory, such that those who disagree and want
no part of it are turned into criminals subject to the force of law?..."
Now, I just had my wife read that [she's my best critic, next to myself],
to see if I had misinterpreted something.
My understanding of what you were saying was validated. You are
suggesting that if an act will benefit all, there should be no need of
any government body making such an act mandatory; or enforcing
the act, or threatening penalty to those that refuse to comply.
Or simply: "..there should be no need to use force to insure
compliance to law..."
Poppycock; dribble and overzealous mental gymnastics. None of
what can possibly give value to your assumptions.
There is too, too much government involvement into private lives
and industry. There is too, too much regulation for the sake of
regulation and for the fees they produce [hidden taxation]. The
tax and spend democrats are responsible for that and I abhor
their quest.
However, that does not mean I agree that all government sponsored
programs should be dissolved and eradicated. There are many
programs that are best left to government control.
Unlike private organizations that can run away with their power,
or the Nation's funds and offer no simple recourse to citizens,
our government is elected and can fall to the demands of the public.
It is for that reason the public must always be aware of what their
elected officials are doing and react at the polls accordingly. The
public is responsible, through their elected officials, to direct the
government power to the direction they wish, as a majority.
Those that are disgusted with a certain public school's policy
should address that issue and force a change, not demand
that the government get out of the business and turn it over
to private enterprise.
It took years and years to stop Monsanto's careless attitude
towards public health [regarding asbestos]. They now make
pharmaceuticals [one of which is falling under fire for related
deaths]. So much for a private entity to do what is right.
How many years would it take to stop Nader's Raiders, if they
were in charge of environmental control as a private entity?
So much for relying on private entity to provide sensible,
sound and honest course regarding this Nation's well being.
One concept you and those like you continue to surf over:
We are the government; Each of us, are a small piece of it.
Many forget that and continue to perpetuate the illusion that
the citizens are separate from the government; that there are
two sides: The Government and The Citizens
There are no two sides; there is one. America. We are our
own government. We elect, we demote, we censure, we
impeach and we create.
And when things aren't going as planned, we should assume the
responsibility to correct the situation, not use some liberalists'
reasoning that it's not our fault; blame the "other guy".
To collect a few dollars from each citizen that can afford it,
and provide public schooling to all citizens; to use a few dollars
to insure the food we eat is safe and pure; to use a few to insure
no corporation will be allowed to ruin our Nation's resources,
is not Communistic or Socialistic. It's common sense.
If our government has gotten out of hand, it's due to our own
inattention; it's due to our own careless and lethargic attitude
concerning governmental issues.
Your suggestion that all that's bad in our society is a result of
liberal's desires to control, is ludicrous. You are as much in
denial; as much refusing to take responsibility as those very
liberals you denounce. You are as much assigning blame
as they are.
Somewhere between the "liberal" agenda of a more socialistic
society, and the "conservative" agenda of "every man for himself",
is the true intent of our forefathers.
I will hold to the thought and conviction, that they desired our
Nation to protect and provide for all; that they wanted us to
to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity..... And do so by order of our Constitution.
Ahhh, but quoting from the preamble just doesn't suit you,
does it.
Thanks.
Underwriters laboratory is a good example of capitalistic success where government fails.
Politicians and bureaucrats aren't particularly smart. Far from it. fporretto, here's a Bastiat quote that, IMO, identifies the problem.
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind."They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority." -- Frederick Bastiat, The Law (1850)
Value Destroyers versus Value Producers
If civilization had to chose between business/science and government/bureaucracy, eliminating the other, which is the better choice?
The first thing civilization must have is business/science. It's what the family needs so that its members can live creative, productive, happy lives. Business/science can survive, even thrive without government/bureaucracy.
Government/bureaucracy cannot survive without business/science. In general, business/science and family is the host and government/bureaucracy is a parasite.
Aside from that, keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today.
I propose to not abide by the notion of do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Instead, leave people alone to create their life as they see fit so long as they do not initiate force, fraud or coercion.
When a person initiates force the victim and his or her agent (police or Samaritan) may exercise their highest moral right -- the right of self-defense and physical survival. And that ought to be all that a person sticks their nose into another person's business unless invited to associate with another person. Too many busybodies (basically harmless unless the busybody is one of the parasitical elite) telling other people how to live their lives.
Principle One: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.
Principle Two: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Principle One.
Principle Three: No exceptions be allowed for Principle One and Two.
All a person need be concerned with is whether they have been a victim and who violated Principle One. Then prove that to a jury.
Thus the ultimate purpose of the jury is to decide if harm has been done to the person claimed to be a victim and to what extent the person has been harmed. All juries would be informed that they have the option of nullification. That is based on the premise of Objective Law also known as The Point Law.