Should we eliminate all energy subsidies, or target and increase them?

I think your right about the politicians chasing the money. If I wanted to start up an Oil company, I don't think I'd get any subsidies untill I paid the politicians...

I think it's fine to sell our natural resources - oil, timber, ores, etc., to industry. I think it's stupid to pay them for the privilege.

Exactly!

And a general observation is -the cheaper the energy,the more callous the usage.

And the same goes for subsidies on water too.

Industries do high-flying tricks and please politicians and obtain these subsidies and hardly practise any "power saving" later!

If your tin foil hat is lose, you believe all the theories on oil company subsidies. they do not exist. You do not have pay a politician to start up an oil company either.

Somewhat the focus of republicans. Stay out of the market no matter what. It can regulate itself...although i think bush did dabble in it to the dismay of the party.

exploration expense tax credit is granted to anyone even idividuals, so it is not just an oil and gas company credit. Even people prospecting for diamonds get it. Nope a tax credit granted to EVERYONE subsidizes EVERYONE and therefore not a true subsidy.

You say almost free. Think about it. You personally can go out and buy an oil and gas lease or diamonds from the government. So what if the government says, you pay us $1,000,000 per sqaure inch of lease, who'd buy it? The almost free is what the market will pay, so, thats not a subsidy.

In the US, the government gets FULL MARKET PRICE FOR THEIR SHARE of the mineral. The company can't change fees, can't buy the mineral at a reduced price, so the government gets their royality at full price.

The oil companies get no bonuses, no freebies, they get to write off expenses the same as microsoft. The free market will decide what we want, not opinions, not emotions, and not greenpeace.

You say resources belong to the people, you want to advocate, what communism? You want to nationalize all resources?

You need to first define quality of life. Your personal quality is different than mine. I'll give you that energy is cheap and $5 to $6 is right, but $20 would just shut everything down, factories shutter their doors, apples would sell for $2 each, a beer would go to $3/bottle. This is not my idea of a quality of life.

What about the highways, completly subsidized.

According to economics you're right, but I think some kind of subsidies must be maintained because of your own phrase "They also favor technologies that are the largest in scale, because that is where the most money is concentrated". Subsidies should be kept just in the strict cases in which a basic need isn't good business.

The problem is some human tendency to corruption, you know: power → corruption, absolute power → absolute corruption.

I recall few years ago, the European Community subsidised flax planting ( I don't know the exact reason, maybe they thought we all see nicer if linen dressed). The result in Spain was an incredible rising of flax plantations, but not in linen production. Flax was left rotten in warehouses (which have the greater rate of fires in the history) or just burned (they saved the warehouse). I'm not blaming (in this specific case) politicians who make that law, they were just a bit naive. They should have thought in the overall process, not just in planting.

Kind regards

Hi Kwetz,

The European Community has the CAP (common agricultural policy) agreement which is detrimental for agriculture practices as a whole, they also pay farmers to not to grow certain crops, or any crops at all.

Now they pay large subsidies to farmers to grow bio-fuel crops like rape seed, this has had a detrimental effect on food crops which is one of the reasons for higher food prices these days.

This is another reason why the British and some other EU countries peoples don't like the EU. And as you said, absolute power = absolute corrupion, This is the main problem with the EU today.

Spencer.

Food prices are very poorly correlated to the price of production, famrers make on the order of 1 % of the sale price on production of food. The trick with food, much like energy markets is the intermediate speculators driving the markets prices. Subsidizing farmers only effects the market in the way it is perceived by futures market speculators and produce brokers. There are probably 6 produce brokers who are involved in the sale of one field of crop between the field and the market. These people make $100 K to $1 M a year income each that must be picked up on the cost of produce. Much like gasoline prices, they use any excuse that can be perceived as increase cost to raise their own prices. So a 1% increase to the farmer might who makes 1%, might increase the produce cost by 5%. The basic idea for subsidies for food and energy is to maintain a stable supply, reserve capacity, and the ability to rapidly develop more capacity when a crisis develops. However, admittedly many subsidies are used as pork belly for special interests constituents, to aid the profits of some govenment agents (elected or appointed).

Any distortion of economic incentives by subsidies should be avoided. The CAP and the US agri policies are good examples of subsidies run amok. My understanding is that the oil companies get about $112B in breaks for "exploration." So I have no idea what the one poster is banging on about "no subsidies for oil." Ultimately you simply have to apply the one great theory of politics: follow the money.

Of course this type of BS has been going on throughout history, so enough tilting at windmills for one day.

If you subsidize something, you are going to get more of it. That's the whole idea, and it has been a powerful argument against the welfare state, where poverty is subsidized. Energy subsidies can encourage more energy production, but if this energy is in the form of non-renewable resources, excess production is detrimental to our future. Even though solar energy is more expensive than the more traditional forms of energy, there is a benefit to reducing the dependence on the limited supply of decayed dinosaurs, so I go along with energy subsidies of this type.

Of course politicians are out to line their own pockets at our expense. Forget whether they have the wisdom, their motives are generally at odds with the people they govern. Here in Canada, we have had a succession of governments whose criminality would make a third-world border guard blush.

Whether subsidies are desirable depends on whether you actually need the item they are subsidizing. If you are a proponent of the free market economy, subsidies are a violation of the concept, but the free market can be shown to be very unstable with concepts like "cobwebbing" where if you plot price versus production, a high price one year leads to more volume the next year (thinking in terms of crops) which leads to low prices the following year which leads to low production - you get the idea. The plot of quantity vs. price looks like a cobweb. If it is expanding, the system is unstable. If it converges, it is stable. Even so, some people have an almost religious conviction that the free market is preferable to anything else. But the influence of central banks ensures that there will never be a free market in any real sense.

Subsidies are a tricky bit to tackle. Remove too many and you may make it impossible for the lower income citizens to pay their bills and you will have to give them more direct breaks...or let them go without lights. Remove too little or add more subsidies and people may lose a ton of money because the price of the good is so little.

In Ontario there has been a drive to get industry to shoulder some of the electricity load by bringing in Cogens. These are not efficient if they do not create steam and electricity at the same time. If you are only creating steam, you would have been much better off simply using an old boiler. The problem with subsidies, is that after the government encouraged all these companies to invest in cogens, they heard the uproar over electricity prices and lowered those prices even more. Now, with higher natural gas/oil/wood prices, it just isnt economical at all to use those cogens. Industry wasted a ton of money on these and now, economically, they wont use them...

Subsidies can be a powerful thing and its pretty important to use them right. Use them wrong or too much and the effects could be disastrous.

One question. Other than bitch about subsidies or no subsidies, what can one engineer or group of engineers do to keep the public from being screwed?

Sounds like you have an idea, or you are just bitching about our bitching...

Develop alternative energy products that are good enough to sell on their own merits, without subsidies. Then publicize them on the Web. Scale can be small or large.

Has there been any movement toward producing and burning biomass pellets in those co-gens? I can't imagine how biomass could not be economical in Canada. Whether in forest slash, raising willow (salix) or whatever. Wood chips would be the cheapest, but require an afterburner. Or are you talking about natural gas cogenerators? In that case methane could be produced and scrubbed for use as natural gas.

Subsidies start when people begin saying that "they" should do something about something. If they do something right about it - what they do has the force of law and becomes and enduring solution. If they don't do it right - it still has the force of law and remains for a long time. Ethanol subsidies have turned out to be a disaster, but does anybody expect them to go away? Ever?

I agree. I would be against subsidies in general but if they must be used they should have a sunset clause out no more than five years at which point the effort must be self-sustaining or whither.

Of course once you have the farmers feeding at the public trough (to turn your ethanol example into a metaphor) they will pay off some congresscritters to keep the subsidies flowing and .... guess what! .... they never seem to go away. Sort of like taxes.

Agricultural subsidies have usually added stability to markets for farmers' crops. The price of having a floor on the price for commodities is that there is also a ceiling. A subsidized crop may be insulated from extremely low prices, but it is also insulated from high prices ( present situation of shortages and high prices excepted)

Subsidies are the hidden taxes that the working man has to pay so some non-performing entity can survive. They are the price the ordinary voters pay for politicans to curry special interest votes. If the entity being subsidized cannot stand alone, let the competition put it out of business. Remember the famous "Democratic Agenda" quote: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it". Many of todays' farmers are a good example of "Farming the Subsidy, not farming the crop".

Hi Guest,

I find your comments obnoxous!

The reason being that as a pensioner here in the UK we are entitled to £200 per annum to help pay our gas and elecricity bills, the reason for this is that we have the worlds worst pension provisions! If we reach the right old age of 75 we are entitled to £300 per annum!

But the main reason for this small subsidy is the atrociously high gas and electricity prices we have to pay over here. So please keep you thoghts to youself and stop moaning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spencer.

HI Scapolie,

I agree completely with you. I don't know how can people be so obtuse as to mix up the object with the use. As I've said in many posts, knives aren't good or bad, just the use you give them (to cut a steak or to kill a child). The same is with subsidies.

The human kind has reach the advances we have because of living in society and that means every people contributes to the community according their abilities. If we forget those weakest (children, handicapped, poor, elder) we'll loose the "rational" adjective to become just "animals"

Someone in this forum think that we don't have to help the poorest countries starving people? Well, we know there are people who put most of the help in their pockets, but this is a reason to search for more efficient helping methods, not to give up.

P.D. Scapolie: If you think the situation in the UK is bad... This week our "Health" Minister has been saying that Spanish people is "mature" to change some laws. The laws they intend to change are related to reduce abortion restrictions (the main death cause in Spain, much more than cancer, heart diseases or traffic accidents, even more than all together) and to allow "terminal anesthetization", so when you are old if have a toothache in Spain, don't go to an hospital emergency department, you may be anesthetized definitely. Well, I put a bad example... Social security doesn't cover repairing teeth, just more socially important thing like sex change surgery.

I recall a poem we learn in the school which is part of one of our best Golden Century writers, Pedro Calderon de la Barca, in one of his most famous theater piece "Life is Dream" and says more or less:

They say, one day a wise man

as poor and starving was

that he only could live

eating some wild herbs he harvested.

Should be someone, he thought,

poorer and sadder than me?

And when he turned back his face

Found the answer, looking

another wise man harvesting

the herbs he rejected.

Cheers

Absolutely nothing should be subsidized, politicians as a whole are too short sighted, and corrupted to make teh best decisions with our money, and it is our money, just because they tax us does not mean we give up what it is to be used for.

When something is subsidized its real value will be distorted. We pay money to farmers so that they don't farm their land...

Subsidies are just one of our govt's ways of working towards building a planned economy.

If we want to call ourselves a free market economy we wouldn't be subsidizing anything. People would come up with ideas, if those ideas had merit and promise they would be developed further by private organizations which would back it and possibly make the money off the invention. It is simply risk/reward, why should we have to risk our money if we don't want to.

Hi skeptical guy,

I'm skeptical too, but politicians, farmers, even we engineers are just people...

And people acts can be good or bad, it's their decision.

If all subsidized farmers don't farm their land, Where do you think your meals come from?

Or maybe if you were subsidized won't work? Just lying in a hammock?

I don't like subsidies, but sometimes could be necessary. The point is, as in all human activities, how to avoid some criminals take benefit of it.

If a man is starving, he should be fed and helped to become self-sustaining.

A similar bad example was when the ancient Rome republic assured all Roman citizens feed and pleasure (panem et circenses). Of course the money to pay that came from the blood and sweat of neighbour countries. But the very moment in which the Roman Senate assured that to the Romans, Rome itself signed it death penalty.

Kind regards

Kwetz, I may have been mis-understood. It is not that I support subsidizing farmers, I stating a fact that there are farmers in the US today who do not farm their land because they receive money (our tax money) from our govt. The goal of that is to help control the market price of food products. that money that was taken from his/her "neighbors" (the citizens). It may not be neighboring countries but it is jsut as immoral.

My meals come from when I perform a task I get compensated, it is a trade, work/labor for money. I then take my money and go to a store where I use the money to buy product. It is a trade of value for value. But if I do not farm myself or labor for money to pay for the food I should not get any.

If they are subsidized that is exactly what they do. Have you ever driven past or lived near public housing in the middle of a weekday, they are already in their hammocks.

And if a man is starving he should find a way to feed himself, not yell to a representative to take away others' money which they earned so they have their "fair share."

I can choose to help him but that is solely my choice, not some pseudo-elected official who is using subsidies to buy future voters through handouts. If a man is starving, I can choose to help but it is not my responsibility to make sure he is fed, it is his and his alone.

Hi skeptical guy, maybe the problem of misunderstanding is mutual. I understand well your point of view, but I don't agree completely.

I agree with all you say about politics or anybody who uses tax money at his will. I agree too with the fact that there are people who take advantage or is just looking for subsidies. And I agree with the immorality of taking the neighbours' money just to stay in a hammock also.

I know politics use this way to control market prices: few years ago, Spanish farmers were subsidized to kill cows because they said there were some milk overproduction. Now, the price of milk have raised a lot, and... Where are the cows?

But you don't answer one of my questions: If you were subsidized as engineer, will you take the money and stand in a hammock?

If your answer is "not" then the question is the personal use (or misuse) of some legal rights and I keep my opinion stated before that subsidies is not the problem, but the use everybody make.

I hope your answer don't be "yes".

And finally, the responsibility of all human kind rely on all human beings. Of course one people cannot solve all human kind problems, but cooperation is a basic need without which we cannot call us a "society".

Kind regards

I understand your position and if "engineering" was subsidized I would never sit on a hammock. I am not in engineering because of making money, even if I don't always like my job but I do it and my side projects because I enjoy engineering and its challenges.

I agree that it is the responsibility to live in cooperation but it has to be value for value. If it is anything less than an equal exchange, one person gets more than they put in and the other has been cheated. Society fails when this natural balance is not upheld, not when it ceases to happen. I simply do not accept the fact that I am my brother's keeper,

"I swear that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another to live for mine."

Kind regards to you as well.

SG: What would you expect to happen should you become injured?

"Better to teach him how to fish, than give him a fish."

Absolutely right, but... If he's almost died while we teach him, we shouldn't give him a fish to keep him alive till he learn?

And... Teaching fishing is considered as "subsidies"?

Cheers

it is a subsidy if the govt taxes the public then holds a class for "free" fishing lessons for people who don't contribute to the taxes paying for the class.

But if you know how to fish and I offer to pay you 10 oz of silver to teach me how to fish and you accept on those terms then it is not a subsidy, it is a transaction of value.

And if that person has nothing to trade for being taught how to fish, then he can either take on the "debt" and repay it on the terms the teacher defines. If he can't take on that debt adn he has no means of value to trade then he should not be taught, and if that results in death, then so be it.

To many my position will sound cruel, but it pales in comparison to the idea that someone else can steal my value and give it to someone else on their whim for votes, notoriety or anything else. If 2 people are involved in a transaction then both of them will get value, if 2 people trade things but a third mediator oversees it then some of that value that existed will disappear out of the hands of the people actually trading value. Many times it is the mediator who comes away with the most profit. We should be limiting the power of this mediator, not empower them, they have come to be the most corrupt part of our society.

Hey 'Guy, i'll assume that you have some sort of post-secondary degree.

Might i ask: "from which school?"

If the answer is "State University", you too have been 'subsidised', as the education in said establishments is funded largely thru taxes. (money well spent, i might add)

How perceptive...

Actually I went to a private Catholic school from K-12 which is probably part of the reason I see catholicism and the bulk of religions as brainwashing people into feeling guilty if they do not follow what that religion deems the moral code. I attended a private college that my parents and I paid for. Private Loans and help from my parents for the first 2 years, once I started the paid engineering co-op program I earned enough money each year to pay the part of the tuition my parents paid for during my first 2 years.

The grants I received were academic, not state and fed handouts because I was poor or a minority. My parents were educated (each were the first in their family to go to college, dad was an engineer adn mom was a teacher on and off while I was growing up) and hardworking so they were in the bracket that means they paid taxes for being "rich" but were far from it and did not qualify for a dollar of aid when the FAFSA forms were submitted.

I don't agree with subsidies in any form, but I do not have an issue with people using the subsidies as long as they actually paid taxes to provide the subsidies. As long as they exist the people who pay in and deserve the services should still receive them.

It is like the stimulus package that was called a tax refund check, except there were a large number of people who received refunds that don't make enough to pay taxes (nearly 40% in our nation) in the first place. How is that a refund, if there is nothing to refund? It isn't, it is a redistribution of wealth and IMO that is the brightest beacon of oppression in this nation today even though it largely goes unnoticed.

Just b/c someone needs something doesn't justify stealing from others, regardless of what they have. Needing doesn't justify not earning it.

And yes I know there are rich annoying, worthless people who didn't earn their fortunes (i.e. Paris Hilton, etc) but their parents and grandparents, etc earned it and it was/is their right to leave their wealth to whomever they want, even if it is an undeserving person.

I must be bordering on "Off-Topic" by now, lol...

Let's take the 'undeserving heirs' a bit further:

Say the patriarch's wealth was accumulated thru dealings that are now considered illegal, i.e. price-fixing, stock manipulation, rum-running, &c. Does the right to inheritance still apply?

If said recipient uses the wealth this bequest provides, to exert undo influence to skew the system to exclude the 'working stiff', or otherwise accrue benefits, not from labor or savvy, but merely political & economic leverage, is this OK?

It is unfortunate that there are "undeserving heirs", but is taking that money from the undeserving heirs and giving it to the "public" more or less fair? In that situation I see the "public" as the "undeserving heirs" and they aren't even related to those who created the wealth. Just because we can all agree that they are undeserving does not give us the right to "vote" away their wealth for redistribution to a large mass of "undeserving heirs".

How could we prosecute/punish someone for breaking the law when the law they broke wasn't a law yet. I think the US Constitution is fairly clear on that.

Those recipients do use their money for corruption but that is not because we follow the constitution, it is because we as a nation do not force our govt to be made of men/women with character and do not force them to follow the rules set for them. We would rather it be made of people who give empty/immoral promises to the masses even if those promises are against the principles this nation was founded on.

The folks that come to mind are the very reason the 'new' laws were enacted.

&, while i'll agree wholeheartedly that retroactive enforcement cannot be justified, i'll submit that justice should more humane than a mere wrangling over facts + semantics.

What if it was illegal even when they made their fortune, such as the rum-running, which has always been illegal. If Joe Kennedy had his fortune removed for his activities, what would Ted Kennedy do for money for the drinking and women. I am not sure I could see a Kennedy working in real life. I beleive the current drug laws and laws against profitting from crimes, they use across the board to take money from blue collar criminals, should be applied to the same extent to white collar criminals. The government can take the profits made from any criminal ventures and any profits derived from those monies, but they seem to only apply this to blue collar crimes like drug smuggling. The justice department would have much more funding made available if they started prosecuting and taking the accrued wealth of white collar criminals like the CEOs of many of these corrupt corporations. If the CEO of Enron had all his money made after he began working for Enron confiscated, other CEOs might not commit such heinous criminal acts against the Citizens of the US.

"La Cosa Nostra" is investing in legitimate business.

Are they entitled to this?

After all, the profits are legal.

(has anybody seen 'Whitey' Bulger? {& lived})

Technically, any profits made from monies earned illegally can be confiscated. This is how the government overcomes the concept of people moving money about to launder it. So if they can identify illegal activities that formed the basis for the original funds used in part of their investment, they could confiscate the entire investment and all profits until the investor could substantially prove some separations in the illegitimate and legitimate monies. This is also to stop people mixing drug monies with legitimate earning to hide it. Additionally, a murderer can not receive profits from any stories about his crimes or how to commit a similar crime. So why can a CEO prosecuted, who committed a financial crime, do such in speaches or articles. While a single individual did not die immediately, usually, upon loss of his retirement fund, many thousands of people will die younger than they would have because of the loss of retirement income to pay for services later in life (reduced quality of life in retirement). One guy kils one person fast, the other kills thousands slowly, which is worse?

Leaving aside the fact of the "justice" of tax policies, I agree in general with your idea of "trade" or "transaction"

But there are many circumstances in which this cannot (or may not) be so. As many posts said, included mine, we must try to avoid the abuses coming from anywhere and anybody (we could reduce it but never eliminate it) but I will try to put some examples:

If you witness a car crash, will you help people? (imagine not helping them isn't a crime). Will you spent your time with this people for a fee?

When you answer a technical question in a CR4 or somewhere else forum, did you expect a payment by this very people?

How can starving people pay taxes? Isn't a good investment help them to overcome their situation in order they can contribute with their own taxes? Even at the cost of a small "taxes cost" if we assure a continuous backflow?

I think things aren't black or white. There's millions of colours and I think to let steal our taxes is bad, but to think not on those who need us is as well bad.

Cheers

I would help someone in a car crash.

But if not helping them is a crime then I would choose not to help them. It is not the govt's right to define my moral code and once my free will is taken away I will not give in. Now a govt will enforce that law but not through being just or moral but through the use of force, either physical or legal.

My moral code is jsut that, mine. I do not force it upon anyone else and expect the same respect in return. A govt forcing people to follow unjust and unconstitional laws is fascism and is no different than the atrocities commited during the Spanish Inquisition. Believe what we dictate to you or you will be tortured.

I do not expect payment because I choose to do it and paying for it is not in the terms. I am not against someone creating something for free, I am against saying it is free when it is really free for most people b/c it is being paid for by 10% of the users.

I don't know how starving people can pay taxes. But jsut because they are starving doesn't mean they should receive a tax refund that isn't a refund. If a person takes a handout, doesn't have to repay to "overcome their situation", then they did not overcome their situation, someone else did it for them. And the most reoccurring result of that situation is that that person will expect that subsidy everytime they have something to overcome. Subsidies do not create prosperity, they only create the need for more subsidies.

I agree that there are many colors but those colors are for each person to decipher. Just because you see "blue" and the govt and every other person in teh world sees "blue" does not mean that I see it as "blue" or must submit that it is "blue."

It is not that I try to be mean, I consider myself a polite individual, I hold doors for people, I let people in front of me while I am driving, I try to not purposely offend people and I make donations, but once those things are expected and doing them is no longer my choice then I will no longer be "polite."

I am not against being nice, I am against the law that requires me to be nice.

Sorry my friend, but you are in some contradiction.

But if not helping them is a crime then I would choose not to help them. It is not the govt's right to define my moral code and once my free will is taken away I will not give in.

So you think your moral code could never coincide at any point with some other?

If I had really a "moral code" or anyway you want call it, I wouldn't take care of what the laws say. I will act according to "my code". But changing my "code" just to be the contrary of laws it's a strange code, isn't it?

BTW I completely agree that It is not the govt's right to define my moral code (nor mine, nor everybody else)

Kind regards

I see where you see the contradiction but that is not what it is meant to be, maybe a better example would have worked better. I am not saying my morals would change b/c of what society decided. My actions would would be adjusted so as to protest an unjust law. To make it more specific to that explicit example would be that I would help in some way but if the law existed then I may stay away from the car, and only call 911 as "help". The point I was trying ot make is that if society thinks it can vote someone into thinking another way then that person has the choice to no longer be part of that society and those who think they can force me would no longer be part of my society.

Those who create/vote for those unjust laws require the populace to follow them for their scheme to work, if no one in our nation followed a law then that law would be worth less than the paper it is written on. A better example was our nations attempt at alcohol prohibition. Eventhough it was unconstitutional, it passed as an ammendment and was impossible to enforce b/c too many people chose to say that the govt and police do not have the right ot tell them what they are allowed to put in my body. and then it was repealed. There are many issues that exist that I see as similar to prohibition we as a nation do not protest, ignore the law, etc. We just accept it and I see accepting something like that is greatly more immoral than breaking the "law" or initiative or whatever they feel like calling it.

But it is the governments job to define everyones moral code to some degree. Consider just the basic morals defined in the 10 commandments. They are all of which our codified moral values. Do you commit murder just because it is not the governments job to define your morality and by outlawing murder or theft they have done such. There are some basic morals that begin to lapse in many people under various circumstance, and the government has to enforce these morals.

Regarding the use of the force of Law, if the law applied is moral and just then the force of Law necessary to uphold that law would be moral and just. Laws are just codified morality, so that is kind of a moot discussion further. However, they may not be just and equitable, and force of law is not consistent with physical force. Also, any force that exceeds the force necessary to uphold the Law within the limitations of the resources available, would be excessive.

Also, the government can not with in the law uphold any unconstitutional laws. Upon application of such laws they can be brought to the supreme court. If the law were unconstitutional it will be struck down in the courts. It can, however, be interpreted as unconstitutional in by your own legal scholarly evaluation. Everyone believes they are as knowledgeable about the constitution as the supreme court it seems.

"But it is the governments job to define everyones moral code to some degree"

To me, that ranks as one of the most absolutely incorrect statements I have ever heard.

Our govt's role/job is to protect its citizens from foreign invaders and to uphold the constitution. It is not to define moral law/code, be social engineers or eliminate poverty.

If you want to live in a nation whose govt has the job to define moral code I hear socialism and communism is making a comeback in Europe.

Our govt's role/job is to protect its citizens from foreign invaders and to uphold the constitution. It is not to define moral law/code, be social engineers or eliminate poverty.

What about domestic invaders?

Who may be trying to violate the most basic of moral codes

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Would you give free reign to business to act in any fashion they wish, regardless of the consequences to the society as a whole?

In a democratic system, the role of government is to comply and make comply the laws (whatever the laws say) and manage the taxes on the benefit of the society.

The question is that: were is that really "democratic system"?

Our systems are pseudo-democratic. We vote and politicians have a period (4 years usually) to make what they want. In most cases the worst penalty they have after they government period is not to be reelected.

Sorry, but I have one of my dark days.

Foreign and Domestic, yes. But govt isn't to define or uphold "morals", they are to uphold rights and the Constitution.

Part of the problem is that people think we are supposed to be a "democratic system."

In a democracy, 51% can enslave the other 49%. That is why we were founded as a Republic, not a Democracy. There are majority votes but there are also checks and balances.

If you aren't sure of that, then ask yourself why the word "democracy" does not appear once in the US Constitution?

You should note that any laws defining murder or theft, are laws instituted and enforced by the government that define morality. You can have a personal morality that defines mruder differently than the government, such that you can stone a woman for caussing your family to lose face, but that is would fall under the governments definition of murder. Thus they have always defined morality within our country. Every law a government institutes and enforces defines morality for the population of that country. I suspect you are only considering a few laws you do not like and not the effect of having no laws at all. If a government did not define morality, no one could be prosecuted for any crimes, no matter how heinous we might consider them, as long as they themselves did not consider them immoral.

but your definition of govt is too broad, local and state govt handle those (murder etc) with their own laws and statutes (i.e. through the 10 ammendment). They have more latitude but they cannot contradict the constitution. This is why there is no law allowing or forbiding abortion nationwide, it is to be handled on the state level. Roe vs. Wade gets around this by dooping the public into thinking that court case ruling are laws. Judges only interpret laws as constitutional or unconstitutional, they do not write laws, this would go beyond the powers bestowed in teh constitution.

Murder is not against the law not because it is immoral, but because when someone commits murder they are violating someone else's right to live. Same for stealing.

That is the problem with so many of the laws that have come into existence over the last 100 years. The laws the govt create should not be trying to create a universal morality for everyone to live under, it should be writing laws and enforcing htem to ensure that our freedom and rights are upheld. And I don't consider a high standard of living to be a freedom or right.

I am not against laws, I am against unconstitutional laws that violate my rights. The US govt oversteps it limitations provided in the constitution on what seems to be a daily basis.

If I actually thought that the govt was to define my morals through the laws they pass then I should be much more cynical than I already am. So I should listen to individuals with unshakeable character (note sarcasm) like Ted Kennedy, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Josepth Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards (and the list goes on to near infinity) on how to be a moral person.

So it is our govt's job to define our morals? The men in our govt lack these and many more morals. But we allow them to create more rules for us that can be upheld through force. It sounds like you want to be the citizen in a fascist govt.

But the fascism stage won't happen until we complete hte socialist stage, where everyone depends on teh govt for everything but when the govt can't provide they will then start to keep us in line through force.

I recommend to everyone to read the book "Atlas Shrugged", I have read it multiple times and do not agree with everything in it but it is hard to argue that we have progressed to the dystopia depicted in that book rather efficiently over the past 50 years.

If one wants to live in a free, fair, just nation that is what it was founded as, a Republic then there isn't much of an argument to be had, but if you are in favor of a socialistic society then we can just agree to disagree.

The whole concept of a persons right is an issue of morality. The idea of universal rights of man is an moral concept that is relatively new. The idea that you could violate someones rights is a moral judgement. Our constitution codifies some of these morals. Only under a moral belief that some men have rights, that can be violated, could you make any claim to violating someones rights. The right to live is not guaranteed, and has never been guaranteed, Our constitution just codifies laws based on the moral concept that the law must apply equally to all men because they must have some inherent rights. The US government from the beginning, by creating some laws and not others, has been making decisions about what is or is not morally acceptable solely by making any claim that all men are created equal or that all men have inherent rights, and developing any laws under that basis. The way taxation is distributed has an underlying moral basis. Even George Washington had problems collecting taxes, and he response was a a morals decision, enforce the law for the benefit of the country and those it serve versus violating the rights of those who would not pay whiskey taxes. You must consider that Morality includes the concept that it is best not to infringe upon rights, beliefs or activities of others also. This is a good thing, therefore it is moral. Laws are simply codified morality.

The constitution was written my very human men, doing their best.

Elevating the constitution to position of infallability, ignores the system of checks & balances that were built in.

Like any contract the terms have to be modified as conditions warrant.

If you think of law as a logic circuit, you will end up with an infinite truth table.

Judges only interpret laws as constitutional or unconstitutional, they do not write laws, this would go beyond the powers bestowed in teh constitution.

Judges have to interpret/apply laws to situations that don't exactly match the original legistation. If legistators could anticipate every possible permutation of the human condition, judges could stick to simple yes or no rulings.

This is why they refer to it as practicing law!

So, then, if there were an individual who believed that it acceptable to reduce competition for a job promotion by eliminating a candidate, it is not a government's responsibility to stand in for the bulk of individuals in the community that believe murder to be improper?

Is leasing public land at below market value for oil, gas, timber, minerals, grazing......

A subsidy?

How about a dam?

A port?