The Meaning of Equality

[Keith Broaders]

Everyone on the planet is unique as witnessed by the fact that no two individuals have the same finger prints. Each individual was born with a combination of strengths and weaknesses.

We come in all shapes and sizes and some of us possess great intellectual capacity while others do not. Some of us were blessed with exceptional physical ability and others have talents in music or art. Some of us have been blessed with many talents and others have relatively few, but we all have time and the opportunity to create goods and services that other people are willing to purchase.

The purpose of schools should be to help young people discover who they are and how they can best utilize their time and talent to compete in a free society.

The economic system embraced by our founders was based upon the idea that everyone should have the equal opportunity to compete for the bounties of life. They believed that no one should be given special benefits or privileges that would give them an advantage over their competition simply because they think their entitled to it.

In order to give a man a benefit he hasn't earned, we must first take something from the individual who earned it. The social program we call welfare,  steals the production of one man to provide benefits to another. This process violates the property rights of the individual providing the benefit and robs the other of the incentive to produce his own benefits. Both the individuals become victims of the system that redistributes the wealth and production of the first man to benefit the second.

The role of the government should be to prevent individuals and corporations from creating monopolies. Hence our Anti-Trust laws. When a monopoly is created the corporation has no competition and as a result the corporation has no incentive to produce better products at a lower price.

When laws are written which requires that children in the public schools be provided FREE milk, the government has created a monopoly for those that produce milk. If a law is passed that requires everyone to wear a seat belt, the government has created a monopoly for companies that manufacture seat belts.

Virtually every law passed by Congress gives one industry or corporation a potential monopoly. Those who benefit will line the pockets of the legislators with campaign contributions to close the deal.

[Quisno Rodonovich]

It only took 3% to kick off this nation's first war for independence.

Today, I find wealth in knowledge from the point of understanding by as many as 10%? Maybe more about world current events.

It would seem that those we elect have greater differential though. Some recognize the dark room and investigate the edges; some see the dark room and hide, others who are special see the dark room and investigate.

Now those are the ones who will in time, change the narrative for many of the others but only by daily inundating of those people on the fence with personal truthful facts they can relate to, which soon opens paths in those minds to other information.

[Oleg Gielman]

By the way the Constitution doesn't give rights to anyone, not even Benjamin Franklin ...the Constitution is nothing more than a gov't operations manual.

[Mangus Colorado]

OG,

I Agree 100% The Constitution is a PURE limit on Government - it does not bestow any RIGHTS TO THE INDIVIDUAL. It is designed to protect our rights from Government usurpation.

The Founders, Framers and Ratifiers confused  the issue by calling the first 10 amendments the "BILL OF RIGHTS" - They intended for the States to have all other rights and powers or to the people per 10th amendment.

[Oleg Gielman]

Yes, The Bill of Rights is the Ten Commandments FOR gov't BY We The People.

[Quisno Rodonovich]

OOPs  Mangus My main man you forgot  States also..

However since Barron V Baltimore decision that was NOT the case which means the states could trample your rights any time they saw fit and get away with it. After all who holds them to account The federal Government?

[Mangus Colorado]

Q,

You still struggle to understand -the basic design - The Federal has no power over the States except in a very narrow band under Article I section 8 and a few items which the States limited.

The States retain all other rights and powers and then the people retain under the 10th amendment. The people of the many States are to govern themselves the State is their servant . . if the State does wrong the people will move - see California and New York. 

[Quisno Rodonovich]

lol I struggle?

It's called the Commerce Clause and I've read BvB too much to be characterized as in ignorant of the intended nature of this Republic.

A good description of Madison's intent was in Federalist #10.

< Government by the people; especially : rule of the majority ;  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation  involving periodically held free elections.>

Notice that the basic definition of democracy is just a "government by the people." Notice also that a more specific definition includes a government by representatives of the people. To say that the Founding Fathers were opposed to democracy is absurd. Their whole purpose was to establish government by the people. They called their government a "republic," which is a form of democracy, but it is not a "pure" democracy. Confusion arises when "democracy," a generic term, is equated with "PURE Democracy," a specific kind of democracy which ours is not.

James Madison outlined the problems with democracies in his Federalist Paper #10.

 #10 is often cited as support by those who oppose democracy and majority rule. Nothing could be a more erroneous interpretation of this famous document, which was written to explain the new Constitution.

Madison's intention was to show that the Republican form of government established under the new Constitution was stable and would avoid the pitfalls encountered by other forms of popular government, especially "pure" democracies. He drew a distinction between a republic and a pure democracy when he wrote, "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place..." and then, "Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy..." Both terms, "democracy" and "republic," are sometimes used interchangeably and should be defined (as Madison did) for clarity's sake. Jefferson used the term "republic" even when speaking of a pure democracy!

If anything, Madison examined the function of democracy in the new republic and showed that democratic/republican government could be stable and just. Rather than opposing majority rule, he demonstrated how the Constitution was so designed as to insure that majority rule functioned properly and in the best interests of the whole nation. I stand on Madison's assessment of article #10.

Now tell me I don't understand the fine print? LOL you're always on my mind Mangus.

[Mangus Colorado]

Ah ha . .

The only choice for democracy was to be inside the individual States . . they could write their Constitution as they pleased with very few limits inside the four corners of the Federal Constitution. 

All Federal Courts using case law precedent to create or legislate from the bench is a direct usurpation. Article III gives no such powers to the Supreme or Federal courts. The Superiority clause is limited to Article I section 8 enumerated powers read it.

The fine points are not that fine for they are creations of pure desire for power not given. LOL

[Quisno Rodonovich]

OMG and a Star is born. ROTF

[Mangus Colorado]

This section of the AV library project discusses the legal - Lawyer - limits - expansion of laws and powers seized.

http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/advocacy---article-v.html

[Quisno Rodonovich]

You actually mean the barrister called 'Liars?

Ok people, the $64,000 question is; Are you ready? Who was the first President of the united states Confederate.

[Oleg Gielman]

John Hanson ...I'll take that in credits.