|
 Originally Posted by boost
Yeah man, I think this is where your ideology gets in the way of you discussing practical matters. It's fine that you think the government ultimately does not have a right to tax (if this is even your position.. it's hard to keep track of), but that's not what you were arguing. It wouldn't even make sense to argue the subsidising of abortions point if government is not subsidizing anything.
My ideology is what it is due to what is practical. I'm into what works.
I don't believe the government doesn't have the right to tax. I don't even know what a right is. Though I do know how the Constitution defines rights, as things that exist because of prohibition of government intervention.
Let's shift your logic elsewhere for illustrative purposes. The second amendment is law, but it is very controversial. Therefore the government should not be subsidizing gun purchases. People who purchase guns should be barred from receiving any government assistance.
It's an absurd argument.
What makes that absurd? That's what the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment intended in the first place. The concept of government assistance is new and was not something the United States Constitution included. That whole thing was about prohibition of government power. Welfarism came later and its origins are mostly outside of the US.
And yeah, gun owners shouldn't be allowed to receive welfare for the reason you described. And the same logic should be applied to everybody, which illustrates a reason why welfarism is a contradiction to constitutional principles. Though it isn't a contradiction to the socialist idea of rights. Which raises the question, which one of those actually successfully provides rights?
|