The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on September 03, 2009, 02:14:49 PM
-
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The 13th amendment (XIII) has outlived its usefulness. At the time of its proposal and ratification of XIII was necessary to overcome the blight upon American principles of liberty that condoned the keeping of slaves based on their race. Race-based slavery was defended by such notables as John C. Calhoun who argued in his (in)famous Disquisition of Government that technological superiority was all the justification whites required to enslave blacks. Mr. Calhoun obviously lacked the requisite foresight to deduce blacks could become quite adroit at using gunpowder and steam engines…not to mention economics, jurisprudence, education, politics, engineering, the military etc. The issue of intellectual inferiority is plain to see and it isn’t those of African descent. Fortunately today those who view others as inferior based solely upon genetic happenstance are blessedly few and that is why it is time to repeal XIII.
Slavery, in days gone by, was a condition that resulted as a consequence of poverty or war. To the discussion of the spoils of war I shall leave that for another essay as to why genocide is not necessarily a dirty word so that I may focus, undistracted, on slavery as a remedy for poverty.
The ancients were certainly not strangers to the giving of alms or that some people were physically incapable of working but for the chronically impoverished who were also able-bodied slavery was often a recompense for their condition and I would argue there is a constitutional argument for it as well.
In the current political debate gripping America we see a class among the polity that are of the opinion that education, housing, healthcare, food, vocational training and jobs are the responsibility of the government to guarantee in adequate quantity. In olden days people who lived under such conditions were deemed slaves.
Some might complain that slaves lacked the freedom of personhood that liberals, in spite of their materialistic grab-fests. Well, if a person has a home supplied by government subsidy and construction we must ask how they expect to maintain their IV amendment rights to be secure in their property or persons when those homes are a public asset that must be maintained for later use. Ditto healthcare; he who pays the piper calls the tune. In short: those who are on the dole are beholden to those who are doling.
Alas the XIII amendment prevents proper enforcement of this principle.
What is worse is the fact that those who bear the tax burden have the least amount of say in the way their money is spent. A case can be made that when Americans pay their taxes—both rich and poor—for public services such as police, firefighters, the military etc that they each benefit. Benjamin Franklin even went so far as to justify progressive taxation for a police department because rich people had more real property to protect than the poor. But when it comes to social welfare the rich are the least likely to require social services despite the higher (and exclusive) burden they are expected to endure.
I don’t know about you but the last time I read the Constitution it was unlawful to take property from a law-abiding American without due compensation. Unlike the police who repay the rich through equal enforcement of the law the rich pay for welfare and do not gain any service from the poor whom they are required to support. What’s worse is the fact that the poor are numerically superior bloc that wields far more power each election cycle than the rich from whom the poor demand ever-increasing entitlements.
Now I admit every now and again a person can be down on their luck and we are a charitable nation. I propose that a person can remain on social subsidy for 9 months without penalty. However, upon entering the 10th month of requiring social services (total lifetime, not some start-stop arrangement that can be abused) the recipient can be hired out in a state of indentured servitude not to exceed 7 years. A person who exceeds 12 months can be outright sold. All proceeds from public auction are then spent to retire public debts.
It should be fairly self-evident that any person so chronically in need of public support probably lacks the requisite wherewithal to support themselves and probably needs to be permanently placed under the care of a master that has a vested economic interest in the slave’s well-being.
Of course I’m willing to hazard a guess that were this policy ever instituted the welfare rolls would all but evaporate within 6 months.
I would certainly enjoy a liberal's retort to my thesis.
-
I would certainly enjoy a liberal's retort to my thesis.
You're a racist bigot! /du mode
-
I would certainly prefer to keep is, seeing what 0Bama is doing to this country, and that population ethnicity is shifting rapidly. White folks may need it there for their protection. However, Bam Bam doesn't seem inclined to care what the Constitution says.
-
A little too much of a stretch to actually make sense anayltically, MSB.
-
A little too much of a stretch to actually make sense anayltically, MSB.
I dunno. Do you think the average DUmmie could/would/should keep his freedom?
Don't those who foot the bill for social welfare deserve compensation?
-
Don't those who foot the bill for social welfare deserve compensation?
Tough question in light of the OP.......and considering that the concept of "social welfare" would be foreign to the founders.......pretty much moot.......
doc
-
Tough question in light of the OP.......and considering that the concept of "social welfare" would be foreign to the founders.......pretty much moot.......
doc
Not necessarily. FDR wasn't the first national leader to put people on the public dole. Such things have been around since ancient times, i.e. bread and circuses. The hebrews made indentured servitude the compensation for indebtedness...and it wasn't always a negative experience Deut 15:12-17.
-
Well....well....well Mr. SB, you make some interesting points.
Now that sounds like and is written in such a way as to sound a lot like something Walter Williams would write.
BTW Walter Williams will be filling in for Rush friday. I don't usually listen to Rush but I'm gonna listen to Walter tomorrow.
-
Well....well....well Mr. SB, you make some interesting points.
Now that sounds like and is written in such a way as to sound a lot like something Walter Williams would write.
BTW Walter Williams will be filling in for Rush friday. I don't usually listen to Rush but I'm gonna listen to Walter tomorrow.
I cannot help but take that as one of the highest of compliments as I have always admired Dr Williams...so-much-so that it was his face I invsioned when I wrote, "Mr. Calhoun obviously lacked the requisite foresight to deduce blacks could become quite adroit at using gunpowder and steam engines…not to mention economics..."
-
A little too much of a stretch to actually make sense anayltically, MSB.
My thoughts as well.
But, also thought provoking.
As JohnnyReb mentioned - I'm looking quite forward to hearing Dr. Walter Williams tomorrow guest hosting for Rush. Personally, I wish he would be the permanent guest host.
Compliments again on the writing, MSB. :bow:
-
Not necessarily. FDR wasn't the first national leader to put people on the public dole. Such things have been around since ancient times, i.e. bread and circuses. The hebrews made indentured servitude the compensation for indebtedness...and it wasn't always a negative experience Deut 15:12-17.
Well....FDR wasn't a founder, and arguably the most anti-Constitution president up until our current disaster,and the Hebrews didn't live in a Constitutional republic, so I still don't see the point.........
doc
-
Well....FDR wasn't a founder, and arguably the most anti-Constitution president up until our current disaster,and the Hebrews didn't live in a Constitutional republic, so I still don't see the point.........
doc
What I was saying--ham-handedly--was that: being students of history the founders were well-familiar with concepts and examples of public welfare. Still, your greater point that welfare is foriegn to their INTENT is as true as the sky is blue. Together my point underscores your point. In other words, the founders didn't neglect to include social welfare in the public mandate out of ignorance. They were well-aware of it and as such deliberately left it out. The silence is thundering.
Indentured servitude was obviously well-known to them in those days and from what I know of early colonial American systems of I.S. it seems heavily founded upon scriptural precedents.
I mentioned the Deut passage because it describes a servant who loves his master so much that at the end of his term of service elects instead to have his ear pierced and made a servant of his master for life. Ergo slavery is not necessarily universally bad.
Sorry for the poor wording...I was sleepy.
-
What I was saying--ham-handedly--was that: being students of history the founders were well-familiar with concepts and examples of public welfare. Still, your greater point that welfare is foriegn to their INTENT is as true as the sky is blue. Together my point underscores your point. In other words, the founders didn't neglect to include social welfare in the public mandate out of ignorance. They were well-aware of it and as such deliberately left it out. The silence is thundering.
Indentured servitude was obviously well-known to them in those days and from what I know of early colonial American systems of I.S. it seems heavily founded upon scriptural precedents.
I mentioned the Deut passage because it describes a servant who loves his master so much that at the end of his term of service elects instead to have his ear pierced and made a servant of his master for life. Ergo slavery is not necessarily universally bad.
Sorry for the poor wording...I was sleepy.
OK....I think that I'm with you now.....and the only quibble that I might have is that I'm not certain that the founders were aware or familiar with the concept of "social welfare" except in the sense that "everybody benefits" from a position kind of way........the modern understanding of "social welfare" would have been an anathema to them. Based on my reading of history, folks that could not provide for themselves for whatever reason ended up either dead, wards of a church, or as you mentioned, in some form of indentured servatude, as there were no other choices..........the "eating Cheetos in the parents basement" form of welfare would get you a tin cup and a boot in the ass in colonial days.
doc
-
OK....I think that I'm with you now.....and the only quibble that I might have is that I'm not certain that the founders were aware or familiar with the concept of "social welfare" except in the sense that "everybody benefits" from a position kind of way........the modern understanding of "social welfare" would have been an anathema to them. Based on my reading of history folks that could not provide for themselves for whatever reason ehded up either dead, wards of a church, or as you mentioned, in some form of indentured servatude, as there were no other choices..........the "eating Cheetos in the parents basement" form of welfare would get you a tin cup and a boot in the ass in colonial days.
doc
Nothing here can be disputed as you speak factually.
However, I would hasten to add one of our members here at CC (alas, the username escapes me) has a sig line quoting Cicero that the treasury should be refilled and the people weined from the public funds and retaught the value of hard work. So, while our current welfare system is novel it is unique only for its technical qualities; not the redistributionism that leads to greater debts, poverty and laxity. I'l wager the founders were aware of the Cicero quote as well.