No, because the general welfare clause meant nothing to what we have today as considered the “welfare state.” I believe the federalist papers(which was written to the objections from the anti-federalists) explains the general welfare clause. I believe Thomas Woods gives good lectures about the general welfare clause, and what the founders meant by it.
I really do not like the rhetoric Dr. Paul uses when he says about ending illegal immigration. I guess the constitution gives authority for the feds to deal with our borders. But I believe most of the problems people clamor about with immigration is the welfare state. The idea of them using “free services” while us taxpayers have to pay for them. But something is seriously wrong with that notion. I mean, if we had a citizen here in the united states, and they were poor, nobody minds. But once it is someone from another land, uh oh, not a good thing. I mean, I don’t believe the lowest citizens pay their fair share in taxes(not saying they should pay more, but they certainly pay less than richer americans). This is right now an incomplete thought, but I feel that some of the people against immigration seem to be inconsisent with their views. What I mean is that the morality of the services they want is good for americans, but bad for mexicans.
All I’m saying is you destroy the welfare state, and you take care of most of the problems dealing with immigration.
In absolute terms the poor do contribute less, and perhaps consume disproportionately more than the rich. In relative terms, redistribution occurs within income bands, so that the productive poor/average/rich subsidize the nonproductive. It is certainly not true that wealth is transferred from rich to poor. That’d be even worse.
Shouldn’t you arguing that we shouldnt subsidize poor Americans instead of pointing out that people are against subsidizing the other 3 billion poor people in the world?
And if you are conscious about borders and sovereignty you prevent undemocratic international bureaucracies from gaining even more power.
Blackwater is no differnet from any other socialized state defense. They are funded with theft/fiat dollars and controlled under the supervision of the state. They work for criminals just like the soldiers in the military. Really they are just a fascist model of socialized defense.
One thing to consider about private contractors though, despite them acting as atrocious as our ‘boys’, the public does not make excuses for thier actions. Why? because they do not have the dogma of the state, no religious nonsense surrounding thier existance or to justify their murders. people see them as what all men are… MEN. not SOLDIERS or THE STATE or some other non existant entity. With a flag to hide behind, when you act like the state… people want your head on a platter.
As far as them being private I just point to where their dollars come from, and as far as being defenseive I point to where their dolars come from and what they are doin in the name of their employer. Private defense? No… Socialized aggression.
What puzzles me the most is how the good doctor recognizes and diagnoses this cause correctly, even going so far as to say they are scapegoats for economic conditions forced by the state as the underlying cause… but supports building walls and violence patrols before dismantling the welfare/warfare state
I am not in the above trying to say that I support blackwater or do not like militias. Onl the complete opposite for both. A private and volunteer militia is an ancient form of defense that has served many a people well an dI would not advise that any man not know how to use firearms, or whatever the means of defense are of his day, effectively. Seperating people from any martial responsibility or the mentality to defend themselves is a important aspect of control and monopolization of violence.
Think about this from the perspective of the child. This human being will grow up without being a citizen of ANY nation. If this occurs in some utopian anarchy of the future it would be no problem. If it occurs today or in the near future it would be cruel.
I totally agree with global citizenship sort of concept, but i’m approaching this issue positively. All i’m saying is there seems no legitimate reason to give a person citizenship based on his birthplace, if we are still discussing “immigrant” issue.
I am looking at this from a pragmatic standpoint. I doubt I will live to see a world without government. So, given that governments exist, what will give people the greatest amount of freedom within the present political framework? In some future without government I would totally agree with your point.