[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no doubt that the precise use of terms around here has become more and more sloppy and incorrect. Socialism meant exactly what I quoted. It has now been expanded to such a point (according to your quote) that it means almost nothing or everything and is useless unless a common meaning can be agreed upon.

"Collectivism" is another imprecise word which has a wide variety of meaning from totalitarianism to association of citizens for a common purpose. Traditionally limited to Communism or Fascism now it has expanded to include anything that the disgruntled malcontents who hate any State activity want to include. Is a church now collectivist?

Schools are not collectivist in the traditional meaning nor any meaning I will accept. Common efforts to educate the youth are no more collectivist than a football team is collectivist. Nor are high taxes necessarily collectivist since as we know from the cartoon King John oppressed his subjects with high taxes.

Since the government is established to promote the general Welfare of the people taxes can be collected by Law for many purposes. Or are you one of those "constitutionalists" who ignore what they don't like in the document yet claim to approve of the "specified" powers? State constitutions also establish the legal ability for the States to be involved in their citizens' welfare.

One of the most nebulous concepts bandied about by the ideologues is that of "inalienable rights." How many of these are there? Does that include the right to contempt of court, to drive without a license, to shoot a gun anywhere one wishes, to do whatever they wish? Irish Travelers believe it is their inalienable right to treat everyone else as sheep to be preyed upon. DemocRATS believe it is their inalienable right to have everyone else pay for their health care, their housing and their food.

The concept has lost most of its meaning if it was ever anything other than a rhetorical device with which to agitate the populance. After all the idea came from the English constitution and was roundly ignored when it came to the colonies.

[Spiff]

There is no doubt that the precise use of terms around here has become more and more sloppy and incorrect. Socialism meant exactly what I quoted. It has now been expanded to such a point (according to your quote) that it means almost nothing or everything and is useless unless a common meaning can be agreed upon.

So, instead of admitting you are wrong you blame the societal attack on the true meanings of words.

"Collectivism" is another imprecise word which has a wide variety of meaning from totalitarianism to association of citizens for a common purpose. Traditionally limited to Communism or Fascism now it has expanded to include anything that the disgruntled malcontents who hate any State activity want to include. Is a church now collectivist?

A "church" is not a state activity. No one is forced by the state to fund or attend a church, or to meet state-mandated standards for holding church in their home. If the state did, would you support that too?

Schools are not collectivist in the traditional meaning nor any meaning I will accept. Common efforts to educate the youth are no more collectivist than a football team is collectivist. Nor are high taxes necessarily collectivist since as we know from the cartoon King John oppressed his subjects with high taxes.

The state does not run a football team nor usually fund such football teams through forced confiscation of the people's wealth. If they did, would that be okay with you too?

Since the government is established to promote the general Welfare of the people taxes can be collected by Law for many purposes. Or are you one of those "constitutionalists" who ignore what they don't like in the document yet claim to approve of the "specified" powers? State constitutions also establish the legal ability for the States to be involved in their citizens' welfare.

Our constitutional government was established to protect the rights of the individual by forming a limited, federal government. The same principles of limited government enshrined in the Constitution are applicable to State governments. The "general welfare" is a nebulous term which can be stretched to cover any and every collectivist or socialist scheme. Only an idiot (or a Democrat - same thing) believes that the mention of the "general welfare" in the Constitution empowers the federal government to do anything it wants as long as they do it for the purpose of "promoting the general welfare". The "general welfare" clause of the preamble to the Constitution, along with the rest of the preamble, lays out what the document hoped to achieve through the limited government it formed. It was not a grant of power.

As for state constitutions, apparently you completely reject the premise of the just powers of government being derived from those delegated by the people. You instead believe that when enough people get together and can constitute a force that they then can manufacture or assume powers that they did not possess individually.

One of the most nebulous concepts bandied about by the ideologues is that of "inalienable rights." How many of these are there? Does that include the right to contempt of court, to drive without a license, to shoot a gun anywhere one wishes, to do whatever they wish? Irish Travelers believe it is their inalienable right to treat everyone else as sheep to be preyed upon. DemocRATS believe it is their inalienable right to have everyone else pay for their health care, their housing and their food.

Your derision of and inability to accept or understand the concept of inalienable rights explains so much about your point of view. Unfortunately, your point of view on this concept is completely at odds with the founders of this Republic.