The Founding Fathers on "Wealth Re-Distribution" and some closely related subjects.  

People always talk about the intent of the framers of The Constitution. From the words that follow, it seems clear that what is happening today is definitely outside of those carefully considered bounds.  And therefore, this Republic is probably doomed to dissolution either by atrophy or insurrection.  Unless something changes.   Ben Franklin probably sums it up best.

 “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin 

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801 

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816 

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” — Thomas Jefferson


“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.” — James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,” — James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia, 1984).


"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” — James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

 “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” — Benjamin Franklin

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” — John Adams 

“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” — John Adams

The 4 principle reasons why a federal government was formed
"(1) The common defense (national security);

(2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks;

(3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states;

(4) the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries." – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23

Above in more detail: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." – James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25

 "I place economy among the first and most important of republic virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." -Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816

Ayn Rand Lexicon of Individual Rights

"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." — Ambrose Bierce

/Sometime referred to as Climate Change 

The public is woefully misinformed on this subject.  Al Gore has said his piece ( he is a scientifically illiterate, hypocritical  moron ). Barack Obama has declared that the science is settled on this.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I have actually read much of the report Mr. Obama used to assert his sweeping claim.  I'll explain what the report actually says – in a nutshell.

It is incredible that so many uncritically believe that the "science is settled", just because the annointed one says so. I have actually read much of the report that is the basis for the misguided hysteria and the claims of the supporters in the scientific community. Basically it boils down to this: Scientists agree that if you run the models with the data available you get the results published. They even voted on it :). Nobody talks about how inadequate the models are and how questionable some of the inputs are. Nor is there much mention of how much uncertainty abounds in the "OK, so, now, what is the best thing to do about it" department. Or is it understood that science is not done by a polling a group of scientists. There is no credible "evidence" that man is primarily responsible for global warming. Anyone who says the debate is over is indeed deluded.

  I understand that there is nothing I can say here that will shake the religious fervor (and moderate delusion ) that anthropogenic global warming, as outlined by Al Gore, is a reality. But here goes…  

Nobody is justifying bad or destructive behavior. Al Gore simply has no idea what he is talking about. That is really the bottom line, and the "scientific" community  says absolutely nothing about what should or should not be attempted to prevent our annhialation.

A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction without regard to evidence. Clinically, many causes, types and levels of delusion exist – but it is generally considered to be a form of mental illness. It is reasonable to put religious adherence to Al Gore's anthropogenic Global Warming hysteria in the delusion category, as evidence does not support it. Probably not a severe form of mental illness, but delusion is delusion. It may simply be confirmation bias or stupidity but it seems much like a delusion.


There is no political party averse to protecting our country from credible threats. Repeated assertions otherwise by the Left regarding the Right are incorrect. But it does fit the propaganda.
————————–

 Anyone who says that science has proven that there a Global Warming trend that is primarily caused by the activity of man does not know what they are talking about. I have read much of the IPCC report. Its conclusions are suspect at best and corrupt at worst. AND PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT the report says nothing about what should be the response to its dubious conclusions. The response proposal is supposed to come in the next IPCC round and it is doubtful that there will be anything profound or useful forthcoming any time soon. Since the problem is overstate,d it might be reasonable to think that the proposed solution could be similar. 

The true believers on the Left presuppose that the reports conclusions are gospel truth and that we know how to resolve the crisis – we are just not doing it. Something should be done to see that future generations have the energy to survive. The notion that "we must act now" is fine, but even if we wanted to, we don't know what to do. We do not really understand the problem. We are not sure that there is a problem. So, we have a bogus , possibly imaginary, problem with no clear solution, but we should make sweeping costly fiat globally mandated changes immediately. Sounds like a good plan. NO possibility of going wrong on that one.

Nobody is saying that we cannot do better as stewards of the earth. It is a profound mistake to base our actions on junk "science".

The relevant questions are simple: 1) Is the earth on a long term warming course that threatens our existence? 2) Is the activity of man the principal cause of this trend?
The answer to both questions is : We do not know? Given this: Is it legitimate to impose draconian, expensive knee-jerk measures on the global populace to counter the bogeyman of global warming? The answer is a resounding NO.


An apocalyptic fantasy of eminent doom and extinction crisis is not a credible reason for any radical changes at this time. But more important – even if one believes that anthropogenic global warming is a reality, there is still no consensus on what the best response might be!


There is some evidence that a few degrees of global warming would increase our ability to produce food for the planet.  So acting to "correct" the "problem" could actually kill people. The solutions ( assuming the problem is legitimate) are unclear and it is equally delusional to believe that knee jerk mandates should be implemented immediately.

Blind adherence to dogma or just plain ignorance can be confused with delusion (the clinical sort ), but that is an honest mistake, as the result is a distinction without a difference. I'm not sure where the roots of this mass delusion come from. But the success that the anthropogenic global warming delusion enjoys is largely the result of a fundamental lack of understanding of what science is and what it is not. If the masses actually understood what science is, we would not be having this "debate".  To date the Global Warming zealots can only legitimately offer  the majestic and reasonable assertion that we need to do better.  I do not disagree with that.  But it is not because Florida will be under water in a few decades if we do not act decisively and immediately. 

I could go on but since it is pointless to argue with religious zealots. I'll stop now.

None of this says that mankind should not try very hard to be better stewards of the earth. Just that Al Gore is full of shit.