|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Grade the Debate (10/7/2012 1:57:09 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
I'm sure that, as with any human enterprise, there are snafus and folks getting help they don't deserve. Which brings us back to DYB's original question (which remains, I think, unanswered): How do we identify who's "truly needy"?
Let's start by saying that it's not in the purview of the Federal government to give help to the needy, truly or otherwise. If there is no clear reason why a person is incapable of working to support himself (herself, his/her family, etc.), that would disqualify him/her from welfare.
quote:
quote:
Sorry for the incorrect fraction (though I was close).
The classification of slaves was a compromise to get the Constitution ratified. States with huge slave populations both wanted them to be counted for representation and yet, to be considered property.
I understand that. The gall of the slave states on that issue has always amazed me. The point I was making, though, was that, despite this bit of mathematical chicanery, slaves were not considered legal persons or citizens.
quote:
No, it would not be fair. Libertarians are not about infringing on other's rights. Slavery is wrong, and that has been encoded in the Constitution. How is it you would think that a Libertarian would support taking away someone's Freedoms and rights?
To be honest, I was being a bit sarcastic about what I saw as a set of glib one-liners. No, I don't think libertarians would seek to enslave folks today. But I also don't think their approach, at least as I (mis)understand it, would have led to abolition. Your own sig file calls for "a conservative interpretation of the US Constitution" and "limited government." Well, we got the "conservative interpretation" on slavery in Dred Scott, and changing the Constitution to abolish the peculiar institution took a determined federal government willing to invade states, overrule them on an issue that was previously considered theirs to decide, and wipe out the property rights of slaveholders. That honestly doesn't strike me as "limited government."
It's tough to consider the actions of that time not having been there. I know there was some questionable actions by the Federal Government with regards to States Rights, and some will say that is when the Federal Government crossed over that precipice and into making the States nothing more than classifications of the Citizens. As deplorable as slavery was/is/will always be, there will continue to be questions about the actions taken, though the Constitution does allow for the suspension of Habeus Corpus:
Article I. Section 9:quote:
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
In the case of the Civil War, the CSA was rebelling against the US Government.
The over-arching thing I hold onto was that this was done to correct the treatment of people. Slaves were considered "property," but they never truly were property. Though they weren't treated as such, they were at all times humans. Emancipation was, finally, protecting their rights to Life, Liberty, an the pursuit of happiness.
|
|
|
|
