ACORN

[kandrathe]

You still seem to be advocating not even bothering to try.

Not really. For example, I looked at my generic Target branded coffee beans today and noticed they are Arabica beans, but it does not say what the country of origin might be. Looking that up on the internet I find that they are grown in Ethiopia and Brazil as well as some other places. So >shrug< I don't know if children picked them or not, but until I know differently I won't get too worked up about it.

I am bewildered by your continued disparagement of what you call 'institutionalized altruism'. This topic, as Jester suggested, does deserve its own thread. At the end, we are likely to still disagree, but I may understand your viewpoint better.

Some brief thoughts on the subject.

To my mind the decision to be altruistic (selflessly give) is a personal one, rather than one made on my behalf by my government. The US government does this now by taking our money(in taxes) and gives it away to people(inside and outside the US) whether we want to or not, and on projects that we may or may not support (like nation building in the Balkans or Iraq). This is not money used to run the government, but rather charity done on the backs of tax payers. People should have the freedom to donate their money to beneficent causes as they see fit, rather than have their governments choose pet projects (i.e. Pork). Personally, I believe that taking property from people with no form of just compensation is unconstitutional (see the 5th amendment, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.") Property as originally defined during the framing of the Constitution is not narrowly defined as land, but broadly as all the wealth of an individual. So if people are taxed for things which benefit all (e.g. national and international trade, interstate roads, defense of the nation, border security, economic security) then it can be considered fair. But, when some people derive the benefit at the expense of others, this type of use of public money is against the intention of the framers of the Constitution. Ultimately, excessive taxation is antithetical to freedom, which is why this nation was originally founded as it was. We lost sight of that idea around 1929 in a state of emergency, and FDR's New Deal, and have slowly eroded away to the sorry state we are in today. Once the power to levy taxes was used as an emergency measure to lift people from poverty, the proverbial camel's nose was in the tent, and now we sleep with a herd and the fleas. Similarly, once the federal government was given the power to raise a standing army (against the plans of the framers), it has never been stood down, and the US has found a use for its military ever since.

I'm of the same mind on this as congressman Davy Crockett who according to anecdote...

One day in the House, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Rep. David Crockett arose: "Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

If 100 percent taxation is slavery, then 40 percent to 60 percent taxation is partial slavery. I just think in the past 100 years, the US government has slowly boiled the frog. We just don't notice anymore that we are slaves to a tyrant government that most of the time acts in its own, rather than the people's interest. This financial crisis is a perfect example of government not working to protect the people, but rather to forward either personal ideologies (using the government to give poor people loans), or lining ones pockets. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of poor people owning homes. I just don't think government should be as involved as they are in the process, but rather focus on insuring that people are not being discriminated against (red lined).

So, it goes back to my old axiom... To mess things up is human, but to really mess things up takes a congress (or a parliament if you live further north).