Government Knows Best

A few commenters to this blog have attempted to argue that things that take away freedom and cost money are perfectly okay, as long as they advance the "common good," as defined as anything they like. This is a hallmark of the Democrat party, wherein they like to tax working people so they can "help" others, making that "help" a common good. The recent big push in North Carolina is "free" health care for children, because it's for "the common good."

I strongly oppose any and all efforts along these lines. Some Democrats and ultra-liberals claim that since the phrase "the common good" appears in some Constitutional documents, any spending for any reason by the government is, by definition good, and anything is okay if is advances "the common good."

They are wrong, plain and simple. They are describing a utopia that simply doesn't exist, and will never exist, on earth. They want to believe that government will somehow do good by making slaves out of working people. Well, England has already gone down that road, and they're ready to take the next logical step: outright murder anyone, anyone at all, that they don't like. Under this proposal, anyone who the government decides doesn't contribute to the common good can simply be executed.

Democrats, meet your utopia. How long before anyone who likes freedom is declared opposed to "the common good?" Come and get me if you can.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:06 PM

Comments

1 Check me, but isn't the actual Constitutional phrase "general welfare", not "common good"?

Posted by: Harvey at November 09, 2006 07:28 PM (L7a63)

2 Here you go:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Posted by: Ogre at November 09, 2006 07:59 PM (oifEm)

3 The Communists have proven that even 100% taxation is not enough and that the system of coopting government to provide everyone's needs "for the common good" never works. So don't bother ever asking the favorite question of Conservatives "how much is enough", because the answer is "all of it and then some - maybe".

Reading "general welfare" in context, and understanding that words change meaning over time (especially when Leftists are involved), it clearly means that the government is to provide for defense and civil order, ie law enforcement. There is nothing in there about redistribution of wealth even implied.

Posted by: Echo Zoe at November 10, 2006 01:42 AM (8POA1)

4 Oh, come now, Echo. You know the only reason that socialism/communism hasn't worked is because the wrong people have been in charge. Why, once we let the Democrats have their way and get taxes to 100%, it will be an absolute Utopia here in America. Just give them your money, your labor, your land, and your guns, and trust them....

Posted by: Ogre at November 10, 2006 01:48 AM (GPb4I)

5 I posted about this the other day...it's a sad thing to think of. Socialism kills people who otherwise could live.

Posted by: Raven at November 10, 2006 02:14 AM (8YBuB)

6 But it's for the "better good." The socialists honestly think it's better for some people to be dead. And that's sad.

Posted by: Ogre at November 10, 2006 02:22 AM (GPb4I)

7 Apparently, they believe that protecting the USA from attacks by Muslims is not for the "common good."

I still haven't had a progressive/liberal/surrender monkey tell me exactly what freedoms they have lost under Bush.

Posted by: William Teach at November 12, 2006 03:46 PM (doAuV)

8 They honestly don't believe America needs protecting from Muslims. These people are so deranged, they actually think Bush is more dangerous to America than radical Muslims.

Posted by: Ogre at November 12, 2006 05:56 PM (GPb4I)






Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0106 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0085 seconds, 16 records returned.
Page size 7 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.