Worst American president in history?

[Richie Rich]

Eminent domain does have it's use when something good can happen for the whole.

INDIVIDUALITY IS SIN. COMMUNITY IS CORE. WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Exactly! Especially when the cities expand years into the future and a new highway is needed, people will just walk to their houses and take hours to commute because city planners years ago didn't realize the city would grow much larger than it is today. Good point!

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Not necessarily. It's just poorly defined. That clause could be used to justify anything from tax hikes to slavery. I recognise, of course, that some things are indeed needed for the common good - like war-time rationing, for example. But far too often is this phrase, and its variants, abused to usurp individual liberties.

And you think eminent domain is such an abuse?

In some cases, yes. But I have no definitive opinion of the matter yet.

[Kelinfort]

Am I correct if I guess that you're against the General Welfare clause?

Not necessarily. It's just poorly defined. That clause could be used to justify anything from tax hikes to slavery. I recognise, of course, that some things are indeed needed for the common good - like war-time rationing, for example. But far too often is this phrase, and its variants, abused to usurp individual liberties.

You could use the excuse of national unity to close the borders and ban immigration completely. You could use the excuse of a war to strip civil liberties. You could use the excuse that the impoverished are slackers and deadbeats to deny a social safety net. Abuses happen, but again that's a strawman of his argument.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Taft couldn't even conquer his bathtub.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Not necessarily. It's just poorly defined. That clause could be used to justify anything from tax hikes to slavery. I recognise, of course, that some things are indeed needed for the common good - like war-time rationing, for example. But far too often is this phrase, and its variants, abused to usurp individual liberties.

You could use the excuse of national unity to close the borders and ban immigration completely. You could use the excuse of a war to strip civil liberties. You could use the excuse that the impoverished are slackers and deadbeats to deny a social safety net. Abuses happen, but again that's a strawman of his argument.

A social safety net is neither a right nor a liberty. It is a privilege.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

INDIVIDUALITY IS SIN. COMMUNITY IS CORE. WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Exactly! Especially when the cities expand years into the future and a new highway is needed, people will just walk to their houses and take hours to commute because city planners years ago didn't realize the city would grow much larger than it is today. Good point!

Overindulgence in sarcasm neither makes you look intelligent nor does it do your argument any favours.

[Kelinfort]

You could use the excuse of national unity to close the borders and ban immigration completely. You could use the excuse of a war to strip civil liberties. You could use the excuse that the impoverished are slackers and deadbeats to deny a social safety net. Abuses happen, but again that's a strawman of his argument.

A social safety net is neither a right nor a liberty. It is a privilege.

And tell me, why is it a privilege?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

A social safety net is neither a right nor a liberty. It is a privilege.

And tell me, why is it a privilege?

Because it's not a natural right that everyone is automatically afforded at birth. It is, at best, a service extracted from other people through taxation. Calling welfare a right is like saying that owning a smartphone, or going to McDonald's, is a right.

[Kelinfort]

And tell me, why is it a privilege?

Because it's not a natural right that everyone is automatically afforded at birth. It is, at best, a service extracted from other people through taxation. Calling welfare a right is like saying that owning a smartphone, or going to McDonald's, is a right.

Actually, your own libertarian principles state it is the right of the consumer in a free market to choose the business they feel is the most economically beneficial to themselves. I digress, but you are correct in saying it is a service extracted from others through taxation. Yet, it is not a right because the wealthy and the middle class do not receive welfare in the normal sense the poor do.(corporations receive corporate welfare and tax cuts could be seen as a form of welfare, but we'll ignore those) The poor receive this welfare for their own survival and it still provides a marginal benefit for the economy. Only the poor should receive welfare besides tax incentives.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Because it's not a natural right that everyone is automatically afforded at birth. It is, at best, a service extracted from other people through taxation. Calling welfare a right is like saying that owning a smartphone, or going to McDonald's, is a right.

Actually, your own libertarian principles state it is the right of the consumer in a free market to choose the business they feel is the most economically beneficial to themselves. I digress, but you are correct in saying it is a service extracted from others through taxation. Yet, it is not a right because the wealthy and the middle class do not receive welfare in the normal sense the poor do.(corporations receive corporate welfare and tax cuts could be seen as a form of welfare, but we'll ignore those) The poor receive this welfare for their own survival and it still provides a marginal benefit for the economy. Only the poor should receive welfare besides tax incentives.

I agree with most of this. But in my opinion, corporate welfare is even worse than normal welfare.

[Kelinfort]

Actually, your own libertarian principles state it is the right of the consumer in a free market to choose the business they feel is the most economically beneficial to themselves. I digress, but you are correct in saying it is a service extracted from others through taxation. Yet, it is not a right because the wealthy and the middle class do not receive welfare in the normal sense the poor do.(corporations receive corporate welfare and tax cuts could be seen as a form of welfare, but we'll ignore those) The poor receive this welfare for their own survival and it still provides a marginal benefit for the economy. Only the poor should receive welfare besides tax incentives.

I agree with most of this. But in my opinion, corporate welfare is even worse than normal welfare.

I only agree with corporate welfare that benefits businesses at are the most productive or create the most jobs (I.E. Above minimum wage) for the nation. A form of a tax incentive, if you will.

[Threlizdun]

You cannot support peace and voluntary exchange while supporting private property, which depends upon coercion to survive. Minarchism is a useless term. Anyone who advocates the minimal amount of government they deem necessary is a minarchist. Anyone from an anarchist to a fascist could apply the term minarchism to their beliefs as long as they believe they are advocating the minimal amount of government they deem necessary. That is illustrated quite well with your advocacy of a government which only acts as a violent entity and does nothing to actually help the populace or promote sentient wellbeing.

I prefer private property among citizens equally protected under the law, to surrendering these rights to a government, politician and bureaucrat.

Equal protection under the law is incompatible with protection of private property.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I agree with most of this. But in my opinion, corporate welfare is even worse than normal welfare.

I only agree with corporate welfare that benefits businesses at are the most productive or create the most jobs (I.E. Above minimum wage) for the nation. A form of a tax incentive, if you will.

But it unfairly benefits companies that are already doing well for themselves and enables the existence of monopolies. If we want to create the perfect conditions for businesses large and small to thrive, we'd abolish most forms of subsidies and regulation.

[Obnoxious Teenagers]

Every single one of them!!!

[Threlizdun]

And tell me, why is it a privilege?

Because it's not a natural right that everyone is automatically afforded at birth. It is, at best, a service extracted from other people through taxation. Calling welfare a right is like saying that owning a smartphone, or going to McDonald's, is a right.

Seeing as natural rights are a nonsensical concept in the first place, I don't see how they'd enter into this. Rights are ensured through entities capable of granting them. The right to a healthy life with a social safety net is granted to us through the UDHR.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I prefer private property among citizens equally protected under the law, to surrendering these rights to a government, politician and bureaucrat.

Equal protection under the law is incompatible with protection of private property.

Private property rights is the last line of defense from the tyrannical nature of governments.

[Threlizdun]

I only agree with corporate welfare that benefits businesses at are the most productive or create the most jobs (I.E. Above minimum wage) for the nation. A form of a tax incentive, if you will.

But it unfairly benefits companies that are already doing well for themselves and enables the existence of monopolies. If we want to create the perfect conditions for businesses large and small to thrive, we'd abolish most forms of subsidies and regulation.

Your plan of stopping monopolies entails removing anti-monopoly legislation?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Because it's not a natural right that everyone is automatically afforded at birth. It is, at best, a service extracted from other people through taxation. Calling welfare a right is like saying that owning a smartphone, or going to McDonald's, is a right.

Seeing as natural rights are a nonsensical concept in the first place, I don't see how they'd enter into this. Rights are ensured through entities capable of granting them. The right to a healthy life with a social safety net is granted to us through the UDHR.

[Kelinfort]

I only agree with corporate welfare that benefits businesses at are the most productive or create the most jobs (I.E. Above minimum wage) for the nation. A form of a tax incentive, if you will.

But it unfairly benefits companies that are already doing well for themselves and enables the existence of monopolies. If we want to create the perfect conditions for businesses large and small to thrive, we'd abolish most forms of subsidies and regulation.

I would consider abolishing regulation for the small businesses and moderately sized business. I concede the above point, but as you just said, if welfare benefitting large corporations results in monopolies, why wouldn't deregulation result in the same? They have nothing preventing them from growing even larger and enveloping smaller businesses with them and forcing them out of the market.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

But it unfairly benefits companies that are already doing well for themselves and enables the existence of monopolies. If we want to create the perfect conditions for businesses large and small to thrive, we'd abolish most forms of subsidies and regulation.

Your plan of stopping monopolies entails removing anti-monopoly legislation?

Anti-monopoly legislation simply spawns more monopolies. So yes, that's my plan.

[Kelinfort]

Equal protection under the law is incompatible with protection of private property.

Private property rights is the last line of defense from the tyrannical nature of governments.

I agree with the idea of private property, however eminent domain is necessary in some cases. It should be a regulated practice and only performed when necessary, but it is legitimate at times.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

But it unfairly benefits companies that are already doing well for themselves and enables the existence of monopolies. If we want to create the perfect conditions for businesses large and small to thrive, we'd abolish most forms of subsidies and regulation.

I would consider abolishing regulation for the small businesses and moderately sized business. I concede the above point, but as you just said, if welfare benefitting large corporations results in monopolies, why wouldn't deregulation result in the same? They have nothing preventing them from growing even larger and enveloping smaller businesses with them and forcing them out of the market.

I've explained before that regulations benefit corporations.

That sounds nice in theory, but the vast majority of regulations apply to all businesses. And that is what creates monopolies. The only reason the modern regulatory state exists is to create state-supported cartels. Small and medium businesses often struggle to combat regulations, while bigger enterprises with more capital are much more flexible to compensate for these and even dodge them. In practice this means that many smaller enterprises cannot compete, with the larger businesses becoming more prosperous and solidifying their grip on the market. Corporations should be regulated by competition, as they were supposed to be.

To provide a real-life example of what I'm saying, who do you think was most adamantly opposed to US deregulation of trucking in the late 1970s? Do you think it was the unions, or perhaps green organisations? It was actually GM, who lobbied the government furiously to prevent it from happening.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Private property rights is the last line of defense from the tyrannical nature of governments.

I agree with the idea of private property, however eminent domain is necessary in some cases. It should be a regulated practice and only performed when necessary, but it is legitimate at times.

I think I've just met the first sensible Keynesian.

[Kelinfort]

1. The issue here is regulation is meant to be streamlined and older regulation should be phased out. The corporations can form into monopolies without regulation as was common in the late 19th century. The issue here is that the regulation in the US is meant to benefit large businesses. If you look at the Nordic model, their regulation is much more streamlined and balanced for both employees and employers. Employees have a high minimum wage and Employers have more ease of firing employees. In fact, the ease of doing business is easier in the Nordic model nations than in the United States.

2. GM, even until the 2008, struggled against foreign imports, a main reason many Neo-cons support protectionism when it benefits our industries. It's not regulation in this case the is he problem, but protectionist trade.

I would appreciate a response as to why the Nordic Model does not work in your opinion.

[The Black Forrest]

I agree with most of this. But in my opinion, corporate welfare is even worse than normal welfare.

I only agree with corporate welfare that benefits businesses at are the most productive or create the most jobs (I.E. Above minimum wage) for the nation. A form of a tax incentive, if you will.

Depends on the location of the jobs. The US government should not be give welfare to companies that will use the welfare to create more jobs in other countries.