Most driving is not an act of interstate commerce. Driving within a state is purely a state matter, and travelling between the states may not be prohibited by states (and can only be regulated if it is commercial in nature).
The Commerce Clause was meant to prevent states from hampering interstate commerce, not to facilitate law enforcement. Federal law enforcement as pertains to interstate matters is confined in Article IV, not Article I. The only law enforcement powers discussed in Article I are those which the federal government has sole jurisdiction over (particularly piracy and counterfeiting currency).
Then again, that's all hypothetical, because actual practice is that anything can be regulated or banned.
Using the public roadways used to be a governmentally-recognized right under the right to move/travel freely by the common means of the day. It was at some point illegitimately converted into a privilege. I'm away from my main machine or I'd post the last Supreme Court ruling that confirmed it as an absolute right.
I completely agree that it should continue to be treated as a right. Those who abuse that right should be punished appropriately (just like any other crime involving injury or property damage). Unfortunately, the US is no longer a country where self-responsibility is encouraged. People are not free to do as they please and punishment is meted out based on an abuse of rights. Nowadays everything is dictated just so, and there is no room for personal responsibility.
So you've read the Patriot Act? That's funny, because most of it is changes to existing laws, making it unintelligible without making reference to each of the other laws changed. I guess if you have enough time and resources you could make sense of all the changes. However, according to a friend of mine who's a Vice President at a major US bank, just putting together the portions of it that change banking regulations took weeks of study and thousands of pages of text.
I'm not sure about personal firearm ownership, but I've been looking at Costa Rica. Standing army has been Constitutionally abolished.
Like other Latin American countries, it certainly has socialist influences, but it's by far the most stable, and has a growing libertarian influence.
There's also a decent English-speaking population in the San José area if you don't want to become fluent in Spanish. Gaining permanent resident status and/or citizenship can be a bit tricky though.
Yup, this is basically a national ID law without the term "national ID" in it. Congress knew this was the only way to create one without massive public outcry. The US is truly an incremental society: as long as each change is barely noticeable, nobody complains.
That's one of the most common responses. People think there's a law somewhere that requires you to fill out a form SS-5. Pick one up at your local SS office sometime, and read the Privacy Act statement on the back of it. That should clear up the notion that there's a law requiring people to have one.
I don't use credit. If I should need to get a credit card for myself, it's easy enough to get a foreign account in any number of other countries, with a card linked to a bank account.
Actually a visa gets you a TIN, not an SSN.
I would agree with the use of torture in certain instances myself, hypothetically. However, I would not ever choose to empower a bureaucracy with the power to torture. It would, no question, be abused. Most especially since there is currently no oversight for the people being held without charges (Writ of Habeas Corpus, anyone?) in this country.
Additionally, torture violates the 4th amendment, being necessarily cruel (though not necessarily unusual).
Lastly, in anticipation of response from those who would say only US citizens are entitled to the protection of the Constitution, the founding documents of the US lay out a doctrine whereby all people are vested of the same rights naturally. The Constitution is just there to protect those rights, no matter who the person is or where they come from. Rights are not derived from the government, rather they supercede the existence of the government. The government's only legitimate job is to protect those rights (with certain notable exceptions documented in the Constitution). Any other function is an abuse of power.
Bush has yet to use veto power on a single bill passed by Congress. Since he hasn't threatened to veto it, it is virtually guaranteed that he won't. Since his pick for Attorney General is a man who advocates the use of torture in certain instances, he's not going to limit power to his darling new office (DHS).
I agree that it's unfortunate the "suspension of all laws" clause, as well as the coupling with a ban on judicial review is much, much, much, much more important than the incredibly egregious national ID section. Welcome to the Brave New World. The only differences between licenses now are the State Seals. Everything else is different in the same way two style sheets dealing with the same code are different.
It'll be interesting in my particular instance, because the text of the law says states must verify SS numbers or get verification that the applicant is not eligible. I do not have one, but as a US citizen I am eligible. There is no provision for people like me. "Voluntarily apply for our 'mandatory' retirement scheme or lose the privilege of traveling by the common means of the day."
My expat date seems to be moving closer and closer. At least I can still board a plane out of the country with my passport.
My opinion simply differs from yours. I take the opposite position. You can say what you like. I'm free to ignore you, just as you're free to ignore me.
It's too bad people in the US live in a culture that is obsessed with controlling others, while individuals rarely exercise the same control over themselves that they would extend to others. Just look at the guards in the Zimbardo prison study.
Exactly as you said: the trains run on time. The trains have always run on time. I'm glad you agree that the trains run on time. The trains will always run on time. Thank you, move along, nothing to see here.
>>You mean, France, Russia and Germany didn't buy into it. And, um, perhaps that might just have been because Saddam was buying them off with oil
>That argument may have worked before the now-evident fact that Saddam had nothing.
What in that exchange has to do with bluffing? If you mean Saddam, he claimed he had none from the start. Time has so far born out the truth of his statements. It's not a bluff when you tell the truth, even if you know another party won't believe you. If you mean a party other than Saddam was bluffing, by all means enlighten me. Maybe it's something completely obvious that I'm missing...
Kim Jong Il sees one Korea. You only make areas you don't intend to use uninhabitable.
S. Korea has better weapons and technology, and a comparable army. They have a superior navy, and occasionally sink N. Korean military vessels that stray into their waters.
Nuclear missiles don't have to be aimed at land. The US parks a fleet near Japan, N. Korea could destroy it. North Korea could nuke US bases in Japan. North Korea could nuke Tokyo. They may have the capability to destroy the headquarters of the Pacific Fleet at Hawaii.
Also, there's a difference between an attacking force and a defending force. Defenders who are trained and armed tend to do more damage than a comparable force that is moving in to invade. This works in favor of both North and South Korea. South Korea doesn't have to worry as much about invasion. They can do more damage to the N. Koreans than can be done to them using conventional warfare tactics. It works for N. Korea because the only way to control them is with ground troops.
Maybe the US shouldn't have helped overthrow Mohammed Mussadegh, Iran's first (and at this point only) democratically elected leader.
Also, N. Korea would be unlikely to use nuclear weapons on S. Korea. They see it as their rightful territory. What's the point of invading if you make the land unusable?
Shrublet picked Iraq because A) Saddam outlasted Shrublet's father and B) he could be reasonably sure Saddam wouldn't have any weapons of mass destruction up his sleeve as a result of the tens-of-thousands-page manual on Iraqi weapon development the Iraq gave the UN.
The US edited out the parts that showed the US allowing the sale of WMD components from US defense contractors (among other things), and went to war anyway.
Iraq was mostly meant to stroke Shrublet's ego and ensure re-election.
I'd hardly call South Korea defenseless. They might lose a lot of individuals, but those individuals would be soldiers. North Korea would lose many more.
Additionally, South Korea doesn't have to worry about being nuked from North Korea, based simply on what ol' Kimmy-boy wants.
Unlike the power-monger US, South Korea doesn't actually want to invade North Korea. They want to reunify Korea peacefully. Fortunately for all involved the US hasn't butted in more than to make idle (and empty) threats.
The US will not invade North Korea because North Korea could inflict massive casualties on the US and/or US allies in the blink of an eye. The blatant hypocrisy is also apparent when you look at US treatment of China.
Correction: They hate Japan more than they hate the US. The whole raping, pillaging military occupation thing has a tendency to foster feelings of resentment.
Since you apparently didn't understand the thrust of the post, I'll make it crystal clear: Once the hard-line application of racist anti-miscegenation laws began to ebb, county clerks used marriage license laws to prohibit marriages that were otherwise legal. Hence I called it an extra-legal power. In other words, you couldn't marry a cousin because it was illegal to do so. A white man couldn't marry a black woman because an individual county clerk said so. See the difference?
Yes, there are plenty of restrictions on marriage. This one just happened to be based arbitrarily on any given clerk's attitude toward the couple. If the clerk chose to deny the license, for whatever reason he/she could come up with, it was denied. Period.
Marriage licenses are immoral and unethical. States have no legitimate authority to impugn the absolute right to marry by turning it into a privilege. Fortuantely, there are many individuals out there willing to follow actual religious practice and marry people without licenses. These individuals are actually guilty of the crime of sanctifying a marriage without a license. Imagine that, a license required to perform a religious ceremony. I applaud those individuals who ignore the marriage license laws.
It's nice to see a well-written rebuttal on Slashdot for a change. Misguided, at least from my point of view, but well-written nonetheless. It certainly lends more credence to the idea that you used logic and knowledge to formulate your opinion versus unthinking gut response than your first reply did.
Oh, because that's always a well thought out argument.
Touché. However, not all innovations are for the better of mankind.
I say we should try to encourage those in power to pass bills into law that actually benefit someone other than the power elite.
As I said before, it is never about a general interest, at least not for long. As long as the majority of people can be led, they will be, and the result of government will be an increasing gap in wealth distribution between the haves and the have nots.
Now you can stammer on all your like about eliminating choice.
I would disagree. I'll clarify, though I'm guessing that the distinction won't matter to you. I believe that nobody of consenting age should be prevented by law from making choices that do not involve the use of force, fraud, or cause other harm without consent. I understand that there are wide discrepancies in the meaning of "harm," but for now I'll leave it at that. The crimes you list, as well as many, many others you didn't, would constitute the use of force, fraud, or other harm without consent. That is an abuse of the right to choose, just like using words with intent to inflict harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is perhaps the most famous example).
My opinion differs from yours with regard to a faceless bureaucratic entity making better decisions regarding how people should live their lives than the people themselves. I don't believe any bureaucrat can do that, except perhaps with regard to those considered legally unable to make decisions for themselves (for whatever reason).
Such a corruption of Locke and Madison I've never seen.
Probably because it's not taken from Locke or Madison. That statement wouldn't have ever fallen from Madison's mouth. He was a proponent of centralization of power. As for your quote of Fed. 51, I recognize that as well. I for one, however, have never been a fan of Madison or any other Federalist. The Federalists were the first party of power-mongers. In the very section you quoted, he states that the government must control the governed. That is in direct contravention of the notion that the government exists in subservience to the citizenry. I believe in the latter.
As for your knowledge of history, it certainly exists. It just seems unfortunate the conclusions that you draw from it. You say you are not for the power elite, yet you support them all the same as long as they throw you some scraps from their table.
I'm 99% certain that Roosevelt's original SS program was a wealth redistribution system... immediately... from the outset.
I apologize if it appeared I was disagreeing with the above idea. I am almost certain that is the case as well. However, that is not how it was sold. It was sold as insurance, where each person contributes and benefits are determined by individual contributions. The initial debt was in paying out to people who had never paid in. It was always about personal contribution though, and still is. Your benefits are determined directly by what you pay.
It is force, no way around it. It is nearly impossible to get a legal job without paying SS taxes. It is nearly impossible to live in this country without having a legal job. The right to sustain life is abridged for those who have no SS number. They have turned the 9th and 10th amendments into trash.
Also, just to be clear, I don't support privatization either. I prefer that the politicians fight until it's too late. After all, the only way governments get better is through collapse, and this problem may be large enough to push people into collapsing this government.
If I missed anything you'd like a reply to, let me know.
First off, SS is supposed to be about one person saving for their own retirement. That's how it was sold, that's the basis I use for my argument. One person's contribution should have no effect on any other person's withdrawal of money. Anyone with half a brain can see that's not how the program is actually administered. This exposes the fundamental issue that the entire program is built on a lie.
Next, as far as "grandparents on the street," humans got on for all of history without a governmental entitlement program. It was the job of families to take care of their own elders (personal responsibility), and charities helped take care of elders without family. Yes, there is a certain amount who would otherwise die. I feel for individual cases, but that's not enough. Death and poverty happen, that's life.
I'm sick of incremental creep of programs just because the corrupt and/or ignorant say, "but think about the (insert favorite group here)!" It's never really about (insert favorite group here), at least not for long. After that it's for those in power, just like Social Security.
From your vitriolic sarcasm, I assume you dislike the power-mongers. Ironically, it's exactly people like you who keep them propped up by supporting the programs for (insert your favorite group). Politicians now wish to keep Social Security around not so much because it "helps" people (since it takes away much of the choice, especially among lower-wage workers), but because they can leverage political power and money through manipulation of public opinion. That's not even to mention the surplus taxes they get to put into the pocket of their favorite fat-cat special interest through otherwise useless pork barrel legislation.
Mostly, the arguments are just to direct attention away from meaningful issues, like self-determination and personal responsibility. The nanny state is about the concentration of power in the hands of "those who know better," and that is never for the betterment of people in general. Humans are too corruptible for that to work well for long.
Perhaps instead of a response stemming from anger or fear you could actually learn some history and apply those lessons to current events. Even though circumstances have changed, humans haven't. Social Security should not be entrusted to the power-hungry, it should be left to those close to the issue: each individual and/or their family, as well as the philanthropic individuals and organizations that exist on a voluntary basis.
Force and fraud are not an appropriate basis for a program designed to help people, under any circumstance.
Slashdot Mirror
Will Bill Gates and the Bush family, or anyone else wealthy and connected, make their data available for all to see?
No, sight is only one way in the Panopticon: out. Those higher on the food chain cannot be viewed by those lower.
Commerce = business transactions
Most driving is not an act of interstate commerce. Driving within a state is purely a state matter, and travelling between the states may not be prohibited by states (and can only be regulated if it is commercial in nature).
The Commerce Clause was meant to prevent states from hampering interstate commerce, not to facilitate law enforcement. Federal law enforcement as pertains to interstate matters is confined in Article IV, not Article I. The only law enforcement powers discussed in Article I are those which the federal government has sole jurisdiction over (particularly piracy and counterfeiting currency).
Then again, that's all hypothetical, because actual practice is that anything can be regulated or banned.
Using the public roadways used to be a governmentally-recognized right under the right to move/travel freely by the common means of the day. It was at some point illegitimately converted into a privilege. I'm away from my main machine or I'd post the last Supreme Court ruling that confirmed it as an absolute right.
I completely agree that it should continue to be treated as a right. Those who abuse that right should be punished appropriately (just like any other crime involving injury or property damage). Unfortunately, the US is no longer a country where self-responsibility is encouraged. People are not free to do as they please and punishment is meted out based on an abuse of rights. Nowadays everything is dictated just so, and there is no room for personal responsibility.
So you've read the Patriot Act? That's funny, because most of it is changes to existing laws, making it unintelligible without making reference to each of the other laws changed. I guess if you have enough time and resources you could make sense of all the changes. However, according to a friend of mine who's a Vice President at a major US bank, just putting together the portions of it that change banking regulations took weeks of study and thousands of pages of text.
I'm not sure about personal firearm ownership, but I've been looking at Costa Rica. Standing army has been Constitutionally abolished.
Like other Latin American countries, it certainly has socialist influences, but it's by far the most stable, and has a growing libertarian influence.
There's also a decent English-speaking population in the San José area if you don't want to become fluent in Spanish. Gaining permanent resident status and/or citizenship can be a bit tricky though.
Yup, this is basically a national ID law without the term "national ID" in it. Congress knew this was the only way to create one without massive public outcry. The US is truly an incremental society: as long as each change is barely noticeable, nobody complains.
That's one of the most common responses. People think there's a law somewhere that requires you to fill out a form SS-5. Pick one up at your local SS office sometime, and read the Privacy Act statement on the back of it. That should clear up the notion that there's a law requiring people to have one.
I don't use credit. If I should need to get a credit card for myself, it's easy enough to get a foreign account in any number of other countries, with a card linked to a bank account.
Actually a visa gets you a TIN, not an SSN.
I would agree with the use of torture in certain instances myself, hypothetically. However, I would not ever choose to empower a bureaucracy with the power to torture. It would, no question, be abused. Most especially since there is currently no oversight for the people being held without charges (Writ of Habeas Corpus, anyone?) in this country.
Additionally, torture violates the 4th amendment, being necessarily cruel (though not necessarily unusual).
Lastly, in anticipation of response from those who would say only US citizens are entitled to the protection of the Constitution, the founding documents of the US lay out a doctrine whereby all people are vested of the same rights naturally. The Constitution is just there to protect those rights, no matter who the person is or where they come from. Rights are not derived from the government, rather they supercede the existence of the government. The government's only legitimate job is to protect those rights (with certain notable exceptions documented in the Constitution). Any other function is an abuse of power.
Bush has yet to use veto power on a single bill passed by Congress. Since he hasn't threatened to veto it, it is virtually guaranteed that he won't. Since his pick for Attorney General is a man who advocates the use of torture in certain instances, he's not going to limit power to his darling new office (DHS).
I agree that it's unfortunate the "suspension of all laws" clause, as well as the coupling with a ban on judicial review is much, much, much, much more important than the incredibly egregious national ID section. Welcome to the Brave New World. The only differences between licenses now are the State Seals. Everything else is different in the same way two style sheets dealing with the same code are different.
It'll be interesting in my particular instance, because the text of the law says states must verify SS numbers or get verification that the applicant is not eligible. I do not have one, but as a US citizen I am eligible. There is no provision for people like me. "Voluntarily apply for our 'mandatory' retirement scheme or lose the privilege of traveling by the common means of the day."
My expat date seems to be moving closer and closer. At least I can still board a plane out of the country with my passport.
My opinion simply differs from yours. I take the opposite position. You can say what you like. I'm free to ignore you, just as you're free to ignore me.
It's too bad people in the US live in a culture that is obsessed with controlling others, while individuals rarely exercise the same control over themselves that they would extend to others. Just look at the guards in the Zimbardo prison study.
Exactly as you said: the trains run on time. The trains have always run on time. I'm glad you agree that the trains run on time. The trains will always run on time. Thank you, move along, nothing to see here.
Apparently some mods with no sense of humor went crazy on you...
:)
I would've modded it funny.
>>>UN still didn't buy into the 'proof'.
>>You mean, France, Russia and Germany didn't buy into it. And, um, perhaps that might just have been because Saddam was buying them off with oil
>That argument may have worked before the now-evident fact that Saddam had nothing.
What in that exchange has to do with bluffing? If you mean Saddam, he claimed he had none from the start. Time has so far born out the truth of his statements. It's not a bluff when you tell the truth, even if you know another party won't believe you. If you mean a party other than Saddam was bluffing, by all means enlighten me. Maybe it's something completely obvious that I'm missing...
*choke* That was modded insightful?
:)
I was going for funny, but oh well.
Kim Jong Il sees one Korea. You only make areas you don't intend to use uninhabitable.
S. Korea has better weapons and technology, and a comparable army. They have a superior navy, and occasionally sink N. Korean military vessels that stray into their waters.
Nuclear missiles don't have to be aimed at land. The US parks a fleet near Japan, N. Korea could destroy it. North Korea could nuke US bases in Japan. North Korea could nuke Tokyo. They may have the capability to destroy the headquarters of the Pacific Fleet at Hawaii.
Also, there's a difference between an attacking force and a defending force. Defenders who are trained and armed tend to do more damage than a comparable force that is moving in to invade. This works in favor of both North and South Korea. South Korea doesn't have to worry as much about invasion. They can do more damage to the N. Koreans than can be done to them using conventional warfare tactics. It works for N. Korea because the only way to control them is with ground troops.
Is Iran a free, democratic country? No.
Maybe the US shouldn't have helped overthrow Mohammed Mussadegh, Iran's first (and at this point only) democratically elected leader.
Also, N. Korea would be unlikely to use nuclear weapons on S. Korea. They see it as their rightful territory. What's the point of invading if you make the land unusable?
Shrublet picked Iraq because A) Saddam outlasted Shrublet's father and B) he could be reasonably sure Saddam wouldn't have any weapons of mass destruction up his sleeve as a result of the tens-of-thousands-page manual on Iraqi weapon development the Iraq gave the UN.
The US edited out the parts that showed the US allowing the sale of WMD components from US defense contractors (among other things), and went to war anyway.
Iraq was mostly meant to stroke Shrublet's ego and ensure re-election.
That argument may have worked before the now-evident fact that Saddam had nothing.
How dare you actually inject factual logic into this?!
Do you disrespect our Dear Leader Bush George Il?!
I'd hardly call South Korea defenseless. They might lose a lot of individuals, but those individuals would be soldiers. North Korea would lose many more.
Additionally, South Korea doesn't have to worry about being nuked from North Korea, based simply on what ol' Kimmy-boy wants.
Unlike the power-monger US, South Korea doesn't actually want to invade North Korea. They want to reunify Korea peacefully. Fortunately for all involved the US hasn't butted in more than to make idle (and empty) threats.
The US will not invade North Korea because North Korea could inflict massive casualties on the US and/or US allies in the blink of an eye. The blatant hypocrisy is also apparent when you look at US treatment of China.
Correction: They hate Japan more than they hate the US. The whole raping, pillaging military occupation thing has a tendency to foster feelings of resentment.
Not an actual scientific convention, but I'd describe them as -3 dimensional. :)
Since you apparently didn't understand the thrust of the post, I'll make it crystal clear: Once the hard-line application of racist anti-miscegenation laws began to ebb, county clerks used marriage license laws to prohibit marriages that were otherwise legal. Hence I called it an extra-legal power. In other words, you couldn't marry a cousin because it was illegal to do so. A white man couldn't marry a black woman because an individual county clerk said so. See the difference?
Yes, there are plenty of restrictions on marriage. This one just happened to be based arbitrarily on any given clerk's attitude toward the couple. If the clerk chose to deny the license, for whatever reason he/she could come up with, it was denied. Period.
Marriage licenses are immoral and unethical. States have no legitimate authority to impugn the absolute right to marry by turning it into a privilege. Fortuantely, there are many individuals out there willing to follow actual religious practice and marry people without licenses. These individuals are actually guilty of the crime of sanctifying a marriage without a license. Imagine that, a license required to perform a religious ceremony. I applaud those individuals who ignore the marriage license laws.
It's nice to see a well-written rebuttal on Slashdot for a change. Misguided, at least from my point of view, but well-written nonetheless. It certainly lends more credence to the idea that you used logic and knowledge to formulate your opinion versus unthinking gut response than your first reply did.
Oh, because that's always a well thought out argument.
Touché. However, not all innovations are for the better of mankind.
I say we should try to encourage those in power to pass bills into law that actually benefit someone other than the power elite.
As I said before, it is never about a general interest, at least not for long. As long as the majority of people can be led, they will be, and the result of government will be an increasing gap in wealth distribution between the haves and the have nots.
Now you can stammer on all your like about eliminating choice.
I would disagree. I'll clarify, though I'm guessing that the distinction won't matter to you. I believe that nobody of consenting age should be prevented by law from making choices that do not involve the use of force, fraud, or cause other harm without consent. I understand that there are wide discrepancies in the meaning of "harm," but for now I'll leave it at that. The crimes you list, as well as many, many others you didn't, would constitute the use of force, fraud, or other harm without consent. That is an abuse of the right to choose, just like using words with intent to inflict harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is perhaps the most famous example).
My opinion differs from yours with regard to a faceless bureaucratic entity making better decisions regarding how people should live their lives than the people themselves. I don't believe any bureaucrat can do that, except perhaps with regard to those considered legally unable to make decisions for themselves (for whatever reason).
Such a corruption of Locke and Madison I've never seen.
Probably because it's not taken from Locke or Madison. That statement wouldn't have ever fallen from Madison's mouth. He was a proponent of centralization of power. As for your quote of Fed. 51, I recognize that as well. I for one, however, have never been a fan of Madison or any other Federalist. The Federalists were the first party of power-mongers. In the very section you quoted, he states that the government must control the governed. That is in direct contravention of the notion that the government exists in subservience to the citizenry. I believe in the latter.
As for your knowledge of history, it certainly exists. It just seems unfortunate the conclusions that you draw from it. You say you are not for the power elite, yet you support them all the same as long as they throw you some scraps from their table.
I'm 99% certain that Roosevelt's original SS program was a wealth redistribution system... immediately... from the outset.
I apologize if it appeared I was disagreeing with the above idea. I am almost certain that is the case as well. However, that is not how it was sold. It was sold as insurance, where each person contributes and benefits are determined by individual contributions. The initial debt was in paying out to people who had never paid in. It was always about personal contribution though, and still is. Your benefits are determined directly by what you pay.
It is force, no way around it. It is nearly impossible to get a legal job without paying SS taxes. It is nearly impossible to live in this country without having a legal job. The right to sustain life is abridged for those who have no SS number. They have turned the 9th and 10th amendments into trash.
Also, just to be clear, I don't support privatization either. I prefer that the politicians fight until it's too late. After all, the only way governments get better is through collapse, and this problem may be large enough to push people into collapsing this government.
If I missed anything you'd like a reply to, let me know.
Thanks for the link in your sig. :)
That's funny...
First off, SS is supposed to be about one person saving for their own retirement. That's how it was sold, that's the basis I use for my argument. One person's contribution should have no effect on any other person's withdrawal of money. Anyone with half a brain can see that's not how the program is actually administered. This exposes the fundamental issue that the entire program is built on a lie.
Next, as far as "grandparents on the street," humans got on for all of history without a governmental entitlement program. It was the job of families to take care of their own elders (personal responsibility), and charities helped take care of elders without family. Yes, there is a certain amount who would otherwise die. I feel for individual cases, but that's not enough. Death and poverty happen, that's life.
I'm sick of incremental creep of programs just because the corrupt and/or ignorant say, "but think about the (insert favorite group here)!" It's never really about (insert favorite group here), at least not for long. After that it's for those in power, just like Social Security.
From your vitriolic sarcasm, I assume you dislike the power-mongers. Ironically, it's exactly people like you who keep them propped up by supporting the programs for (insert your favorite group). Politicians now wish to keep Social Security around not so much because it "helps" people (since it takes away much of the choice, especially among lower-wage workers), but because they can leverage political power and money through manipulation of public opinion. That's not even to mention the surplus taxes they get to put into the pocket of their favorite fat-cat special interest through otherwise useless pork barrel legislation.
Mostly, the arguments are just to direct attention away from meaningful issues, like self-determination and personal responsibility. The nanny state is about the concentration of power in the hands of "those who know better," and that is never for the betterment of people in general. Humans are too corruptible for that to work well for long.
Perhaps instead of a response stemming from anger or fear you could actually learn some history and apply those lessons to current events. Even though circumstances have changed, humans haven't. Social Security should not be entrusted to the power-hungry, it should be left to those close to the issue: each individual and/or their family, as well as the philanthropic individuals and organizations that exist on a voluntary basis.
Force and fraud are not an appropriate basis for a program designed to help people, under any circumstance.