< I assume you've read it. Or maybe not. Or maybe you did read it,.>

I have not read the whole Constitution of the USA in detail in recent years..

<Not focusing on if it is or isn't oversized.. but interested.. what do you think a government should actually do Lester ?>

So from your answer (and I am not trolling you) in relation to my question of what a government actually should do, you sort of made a sweeping statement about acting according to the Cont - from your response it might be concluded you say there is 51 governments in the USA - one overarching federal, and 50 States.. giving a lot of wiggle room to "government"

Speaking broadly to the Const... the interpretation of this had often been changed by law courts, so your response is not a very useful one to me.. helpful in some respects though.

Me, I would say that a governments job is to enforce the law of the land (the Constitution is a Law) and insure the well being of citizens through application of law and the public purse according to the peoples will through established community standards - again the Cont has been amended to reflect those changing standards . But my statement is also *very* broad.The USA Constitution certainly touches on that - and despite being a fairly short document - does touch on things like the reaction of roads and a post office. But I would hardly call it a self-contained document not requiring further supporting Law, Policy, and Documents.

I also recall (and yes I had to look up the correct wording) the USA Cont contained "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Obviously the term "public safety" is very subjective. For instance I am sure there are folks out there who would deem mini skirts a threat to morality and therefore public safety and who would thereby claim your Fed Gov has a right and a duty to ban them.

So the simple and simplistic answer "But the government of the United States should do what it is authorized by law to do, and nothing more. Law meaning the Constitution" as not very enlightening at all..

I think each person should be paid what they are worth. If you can't raise a family on your meager income, don't have a family until you learn a trade so that you can make more money. There should be no minimum wage, since wherever you set the minimum, there are going to be people who aren't worth that much, therefore you have just legislated them out of a job. And a federal minimum is REALLY stupid, since the cost of living in different parts of the country varies so drastically. Charity was much more charitable when it was given freely. Now the government comes and takes it out of my pocket at gunpoint, and gives it to whomever THEY decide needs it. That's not charity, that's theft. But theft is ok with you, as long as it's the government doing it?

"Oh you mean in the times of say the turn of the 20th century with unregulated finance and a economic crash every 3 to 5 years. Remember this is a time when if you did not have a family the vast majority of American were allowed to die or be reduced to begging if they were not in the upper couple of percent of earnings."

The economic crashes were caused by government meddling with the economy, then as now. And would you mind showing where you got the "facts" that you base your statement on that anyone not in the top couple of percent of income was allowed to die, or reduced to begging?

"You being a heavy equipment operator tells me likely you are not educated beyond perhaps a highschool diploma. My guess is after that you took a government subsidized trade course in heavy equipment operation. Since you have been unemployed for 2 years, I am guessing you lack the motivation and will to start your own business, or hump your own money. I also believe to lack the courage of your convictions."

How nice of you to assume you know ANYTHING about me, my level of education, or where I got it. I have a degree in Civil Engineering, but found that I could make better money by doing the work than sitting in an office. I also prefer to be outside. I did NOT go to a government subsidized trade course, but completed a 4 year apprenticeship operated by The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12. This apprenticeship is paid for by the union's members. And trust me, I do make money on the side. I worked long and hard to build a side business that does work on a cash basis. Again, your assumption is wrong. What was that about your opinions being based on facts?

"There are hundreds of ways to work off the books, pay no taxes, operate cash only. If you truly believe that the world is so unjust and the laws are so unjust then someone with intelligence and testicles would utilize civil disobedience in order to live in harmony with their convictions. This would mean perhaps doing off the book remodeling and construction work on the side."

I have no experience in remodeling, or ordinary construction work. If you would read my posting, you would see that my experience is in Heavy Construction. It's kind of hard to get side jobs building bridges and airports. Another assumption in error.

"As to your love of stating the federal gov should do nothing except what is enumerated, you do realize the decent paying job as an equipment operator is a result of those damn socialist unions fighting for workers rights and gaining the right to organize. Prior to this an equipment operator would make less than even a ditch digger and be paid only as piece work. Then again what you would be running is a mule team in the middle of no where perhaps in a mine. But you know that is back in the good old days."

I certainly don't need you to tell me anything about unionism, and what I would be doing if there had been no unions. Besides, what in the hell does that have to do with the enumerated powers of the federal government?


"The reality is you could have opted out, dropped out of society, worked off the books, never paid your taxes or for any of these programs.

Another aspect is, and this kills me, there is no way in hell you even come close to making enough money to reap any particular benefit from the stripping of the governments workers protections and programs. I will give you one reason. You are a construction worker who does not own his own contracting company. So looking at prevailing wage in San Diego you make less than 75k a year. A far cry from the folks you are petitioning supporting a begging to take power. If you did make the money thresholds that would benefit you as an individual you would have to be bringing down at least 250k a year preferably 1mil a year. You would need to own your own company, something you clearly are not bright enough or motivated enough to do, and you would have to have the intelligence to make your own investments, (something you seem to be incapable of since you are on unemployment for the last couple years)."

So, you don't think that the money that has been taken from me for the Socialist Insecurity program could have been invested over these many years, and been turned very easily into something much better than the pittance that the government would have me collect if I ever live long enough to satisfy their rules? And of course, you also know exactly how much intelligence it takes to actually build a road or a bridge, the kind of calculations, and the precision that is needed to make these things happen? If I had wanted to marry myself to a company, and work at nothing but that company for years, I could have been a contractor. I chose to have a life outside of my job. And you would downgrade me for making that decision. You sir, are a typical, judgemental ass, who has no idea what he is talking about.

"Something I learned very young, if you are unemployed your job is not to collect unemployment, it is to find a full time job. That is lazy
There are 18 heavy equipment operator jobs in San Diego right now, that is one one list. How many have you applied for? A good worker can find work any time."

Again, your lack of knowledge shines through. You do not have access to the list of Local 12 equipment operating jobs available, so you have no idea what is available in San Diego, or anywhere else. As a member of Local 12, I am not allowed to to take the training and experience I have gained through over 30 years of working as a union member, and go give that benefit to a non-union contractor. That is one of the rules I must abide by to remain a member of my union.

"I'm betting I have the answer. You can't pass the drug test."

You'd lose that bet, you arrogant ass. Once again, assumption incorrect. I have never engaged in the use of illegal drugs of any kind, I don't even drink alcohol, nor smoke cigarettes. I have easily passed a drug test for every job I have had in the last 10 years or so. I am in favor of drug testing for employment, since I have no desire to work with stoned operators.

"As of yet you have not demonstrated that, like most Libertarians you are ignorant, selfish and stoned. You want all of the benefits but are unwilling to do what it takes to actually get them. I am thankful that most Libertarians are like you and will never really come to power since your very transparent arguments take little effort to eliminate."

No, I hold out no fantasies that the Libertarian Party will ever come to power in modern times. This country's founders would have been Libertarians, had the party existed then, and there are no more leaders like them left today. Today, everyone is all about gimme, gimme, gimme. No, I don't expect that a party full of people that believe in the rule of law and taking responsibility for one's own actions will ever be very popular. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a Republicrat, though. So I am a Libertarian. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. I came to realize long ago that this is your normal state. Now, about your opinions being backed by facts and research? What happened to that idea? Honesty. Extreme Honesty. Maybe you're in the wrong place, sir.