Yes, I use the words "social institutuion" with "socialist organizations" because in the context of this thread they are one and the same. Any enterprise or organization that can be established and sustained by the people, freely and without funding or control by government, I consider a free enterprise. Once government funds or controls that enterprise or organization I believe we have a social(ist) institution. Public education has become a social(ist) institution. Health care has become a social(ist) institution. Building and maintaining roads has become a social(ist) institution. Charity of all things has become a social(ist) institution. Marriage has even become a social(ist) institution. And, in many ways law enforcement and the military are social(ist) institutions. If government were to stay out of these institutitions then I believe we as a nation will be free and prosperous. I believe this is what 'most' of our Founding Fathers were trying to create. I will agree that some disagreed with this philosophy but that is what the debate was all about.wiser2 wrote:Good point. You should be concerned:Tribunal wrote:I am very concerned with the ignorance expressed by those in positions to teach and lead. I am also concerned that those who know don't or won't argue the truth. We can no longer be quiet.
Actually, you used the words "social institution" in the present time, to which I responded. You have confused a social institution, like a government or a school or a church, with a socialist organization. Social and socialist are not the same thing, although they are spelled similarly. Social has to do with associating with other people, while socialist/socialism has to do with government or economic systems that have the goal of benefiting the people as a whole, rather than the individual.Tribunal wrote:Wrong! You are using modern definitions for "union, domestic tranquility, and general welfare". You seem to be associating union, domestic tranquility, and general welfare to social(ist) programs when, according to the Founding Fathers, those terms meant united, peace, and the common good of the people. The Founding Fathers were not socialists and did not even concieve of social programs. Their plan was for us to be free, not slaves. When applying definitions to words and terms in our Constitution read what the Founders actually said and do some research into the context of their statements.I agree with you that the role of government should not be to define a social institution. But, the Constitution seems to disagree with you, at least partially, concerning its intent. Consider, "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution..." You will notice that "Union", "domestic Tranquility", and "general welfare", are all related to a social institution.
Yes. The existence of the United States, as a united set of states, was a group of united small republics who's purpose was to secure the rights of the citizens of the individual states. These united republics established a secure environment, through another republic (the Federal government), to be free from all threats, foreign and domestic; and to provide a means of commerce among the smaller republics. Where do you see socialism in this?I agree that in general, the founding fathers were not overly socialist. But, I suspect that if you examine things very carefully, that you will find much evidence of some socialism in their philosophy. I believe one example is the existence of the United States, as a united set of states.