Anti-American VS Anti-government

[Skull Pilot]

Skull makes a point that cannot be defended at all: that the health insurance industry is the most regulated in the world.

read a little closer. I said the insurance industry is one of the most heavily regulated

If you're going to quote me at least be accurate.

 

[California Girl]

Skull makes a point that cannot be defended at all: that the health insurance industry is the most regulated in the world.

read a little closer. I said the insurance industry is one of the most heavily regulated

If you're going to quote me at least be accurate.

You're asking Joke to read - and comprehend? Seriously?

Good luck with that!

 

[code1211]

You are judging people in the past by standards of today.

I am not condemning people for the past. One can only be judged by the moral standard of one's time.

However, we should idealize a past that did not exist either. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" did not apply to the majority of the people in the past. So when one says "We had more liberty 100 years ago," "we" does not include the majority of the people in this country since women were often considered to be adjuncts of their husbands and blacks did not have the legal rights of whites. "Freedom" means more than taxes.

All nations need their myths. Mythology has significant elements of truth but it also distorts history.

Of course, you are right. As each year has passed, our country has moved closer to the ideal outlined by the Founders and by many before them. The Founders were the ones that codified these notions into a legal framework and set in motion a revolution that continues today.

As an aside, in the second half of 19th century, the phrase "Rule of Thumb" came into being. The "Rule of Thumb" applied to the beating of one's wife and literally meant that a husband was in violation of the law if the club he used to beat his wife had a diameter greater than that of his thumb. While this is barbarous by today's standards, it was a small step in the right direction.

In one of his sonnets, Shakespeare speaks of Love as as a guide. If you know the sonnet, please excuse this butchery:

"...Love is not Time's fool though rosey lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come.
Oh, no! It is an ever fixed mark. A guide to every wandering bark,
Whose height be known but whose measure may never be taken..."

It's been a while since I've read this one.

Great thoughts and words are like Love in this sonnet. They are guides and inspirations to bring us to a higher striving in our actions and a higher understanding of our capabilities. They stretch us, prod us, pull us and push us to something greater.

If anyone has ever been given hope by the words of a poet or a philosopher or a Founder, that person understands the power of a great thought.

When one says that we had liberty 100 years ago, it may be true in some ways and not in others. One thing is certain. Most did not have indoor plumbing 100 years ago or TV or two car garages.

100 years ago, people did have hopes and dreams and a yearning to achieve something better. We still have that. If the limitations of experience or education leave them to hold up an example from the past that never really existed but is worth pursuing, why not pursue it? That pursuit, as in "of happiness", is what has driven this country for a couple centuries.

Our current myths are left to us by Kapra and Spielberg and Stallone and Stan Lee and all of the masters of the classics. Whatever the source or the motivation, if it leads to something better, let's go with it.

Why be the Knight of Mirrors to one who is transmutating souls?

 

[Diuretic]

Government is a necessary evil IMO.

Without some sort of governance with the sole and explicit purpose to protect the rights of the individual, lawlessness will hamper the individual's ability to freely exercise his rights.

In that sense, there is an optimum size of government. Too small and the rights of individuals are not adequately protected. Too large and the government becomes unwieldy and expensive to the point that people are unable to exercise their rights because the financial means to do so are gone and excessive regulation makes it difficult if not impossible to participate in free enterprise.

The notion that all men are equal to exercise their rights as they see fit will result in an equality of results is flawed.

The plain truth is that the assumption that all are free and capable to make their own decisions results in inequality of results. We currently are unable to reconcile that simple fact and are attempting to force an equalization by governmental regulation of results regardless of the choices made.

You invoke Marx and his theory of exploitation fits here. Bbut it is the government that is exploiting us, not some other social class.

According to Marx, a laborer is exploited if he or she performs more labor than necessary to produce the goods society consumes. Well government currently collects (confiscates by threat of force that is) upwards of 50% of the average person's income; more than that spent on food clothing and housing combined. this exploitation by government is done with all the best intentions, the equalization of results being uppermost on the list, but as stated above, forced equity of results can only stem from a corresponding lessening of choice and liberty.

Don't forget that government cannot give to one without taking from another. And the fact that the majority of our income is going to government is the worst kind of exploitation.

Thanks for being patient.

Your points on the existence and size of government can't be quibbled with.

I am not of the view that there should be an equality of results in society. I think that is the way of the totalitarian. I don't think any government should legislate for such an outcome. It would be impossible as well as undesirable and again it would require a totalitarian approach. I know this is an abstract and somewhat nebulous point but I think among the duties of government is that it should seek to reduce injustice in a society. Now before the brickbats come flying I have to defend that point by suggesting that the definition of “justice” and that of “injustice” are open to that society to decide upon. For the moment I'm only making a broad point.

From what I understand Marx's argument about exploitation was based more on alienation than the theory of surplus value which he borrowed from Ricardo. And if my memory serves me correctly Ricardo's formulation was distinct from the previous classical view of value. All I do know is that both Ricardo and Marx are considered to have not fully developed the theory but that's out of my ken and probably the substance of my post.

Taxation, particularly income tax, is a fact of life. The amount you describe is very high. One would imagine that there is a gradual tax scheme operating there? If not then 50% of a person's income would damage the poor far more than the rich. I wouldn't be too keen on it unless I were getting back a very high level of social services at little or no cost. At that rate I'd be arguing for – among other things – free education right up to PhD. As an aside a PhD or as Master's by research in Australia is free thanks to government policy encouraging university-based researchers. That's the sort of thing I would see extended through education from year 1 to PhD at those tax rates.

Governments have the potential ability to exploit, no argument there. But I would think a government that did that would not see another term.

Exploitation is injustice and exploitation, in keeping with my idea that government exists, inter alia, to reduce the instances of injustice in society should be targeted by government, government shouldn't perpetrate it. But that goes back to my point. What's "injustice"?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Thanks for being patient.

Your points on the existence and size of government can't be quibbled with.

I am not of the view that there should be an equality of results in society. I think that is the way of the totalitarian. I don't think any government should legislate for such an outcome. It would be impossible as well as undesirable and again it would require a totalitarian approach. I know this is an abstract and somewhat nebulous point but I think among the duties of government is that it should seek to reduce injustice in a society. Now before the brickbats come flying I have to defend that point by suggesting that the definition of “justice” and that of “injustice” are open to that society to decide upon. For the moment I'm only making a broad point.

Great response.

And yes, the definition of injustice is one that must be agreed upon. I have never called for economic "justice" because i believe that any income or profit got by legal means without violating the rights of any other person is a just profit or gain. Yes people can profit from illegal activities and in the sense that one profited from another via force there was an injustice committed, namely theft.

From what I understand Marx's argument about exploitation was based more on alienation than the theory of surplus value which he borrowed from Ricardo. And if my memory serves me correctly Ricardo's formulation was distinct from the previous classical view of value. All I do know is that both Ricardo and Marx are considered to have not fully developed the theory but that's out of my ken and probably the substance of my post.

You may be right. I used Marx's definition of exploitation rather than alienation. And I agree the theory is not fully formed otherwise there would not be the confusion we see here on what Marxism actually is.

Taxation, particularly income tax, is a fact of life. The amount you describe is very high. One would imagine that there is a gradual tax scheme operating there? If not then 50% of a person's income would damage the poor far more than the rich. I wouldn't be too keen on it unless I were getting back a very high level of social services at little or no cost. At that rate I'd be arguing for – among other things – free education right up to PhD. As an aside a PhD or as Master's by research in Australia is free thanks to government policy encouraging university-based researchers. That's the sort of thing I would see extended through education from year 1 to PhD at those tax rates.

Actually the 50% figure is a total of all taxes paid by the average taxpayer. We can use a median here and still be safe with the 50% figure. So we pay a large share indeed to our government both federal and state.

Now again, I am not anti taxation. My stance is that government has gone beyond its mandate of maintaining an environment where citizens have the liberty to choose how they want to live and economic liberty is among those freedoms necessary for a citizen to be able to make choices that will allow him to prosper.

Governments have the potential ability to exploit, no argument there. But I would think a government that did that would not see another term

.

You would think that to be true, as I would hope it to be. But I believe we are experiencing a drift (more like a moderate current) into the state of soft despotism described by Tocqueville and as commented on here

Soft Despotism - David Gordon - Mises Institute

Over these [citizens] is elevated an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle… It works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their testaments, divides their inheritances… In this fashion, every day, it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare; it confines the action of the will within a smaller space and bit by bit it steals from each citizen the use of that which is his own. Equality has prepared men for all of these things: it has disposed them to put up with them and often even to regard them as a benefit.

Isn't this the current state of government. it seems to me that government is pursuing this very end. The regulatory role of government is expanding into all areas of life and goes far beyond the necessary level of government mentioned earlier.

It is a slow process and for those that are not vigilant, unnoticeable.

Couple soft despotism with Alexander Fraser Tytler's notion of the life cycle of democracy (forgive me for using wiki)

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

* From bondage to spiritual faith;
* From spiritual faith to great courage;
* From courage to liberty;
* From liberty to abundance;
* From abundance to complacency;
* From complacency to apathy;
* From apathy to dependence;
* From dependence back into bondage

We can argue about just where the U.S. is on the cycle. I would submit that we are somewhere between complacency and dependence which is characterized by apathy.

Most Americans just don't care that they pay more than half their income to the government for the privilege of more government control over their lives.

Exploitation is injustice and exploitation, in keeping with my idea that government exists, inter alia, to reduce the instances of injustice in society should be targeted by government, government shouldn't perpetrate it. But that goes back to my point. What's "injustice"?

That's the question and I'll answer simply. Injustice results from the violation of one's right to liberty by another. And economic liberty is included in that .

The government is unjustly exploiting us because rather than protecting our rights to live and choose freely, we are being told via regulation and penalties what choices to make. And the means to enforce these reductions of liberty are our the fruits of our own labors.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals spend their entire time bashing America and spend every ounce of their intellectual energy in finding new ways they can make America look evil by writing a ton of history about things that have happened such as slavery. Now its one thing to acknowledge or point out the evils of slavery but the entire tone of their criticism is never directed at the institution of slavery, the people who participated in it, or even the laws that allowed it to happen but at the identity of American society itself.

The only aspect of America that liberals seem never to criticize is the government or at least the authority it holds over people. Its the reason why tea party protesters were criticized by left-leaning CNN as "anti-government" as if being "anti-government" is a great sin yet the criticism of being "anti-government" never gets the same defense from the left as being anti-American.

Every person has the power to form whatever opinion they have of America they wish even if that opinion is negative but they also have the same power to form an opinion of the general authority of the state as can be formed of American culture, history, and people.

The left does not seem to want to recognize this fact because those that do criticize the general authority of the state are labeled as "anti-government", "militia members", or "right-wing terrorist". The lack of vigorous defense, fear, and disdain for people who criticize the general authority of the state in the same way those that criticize America reflects a thinking on the left that the authority of the state is a complimentary part of human existence in which no person can be complete without.

How DARE the left criticize such noble American ideals like starting wars, torturing human beings or allowing corporations to poison the water we drink and the air we breathe!!! What a bunch of anti-American creeps come from the left!!!

If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-ative Christians tree huggers?

 

[code1211]

Liberals spend their entire time bashing America and spend every ounce of their intellectual energy in finding new ways they can make America look evil by writing a ton of history about things that have happened such as slavery. Now its one thing to acknowledge or point out the evils of slavery but the entire tone of their criticism is never directed at the institution of slavery, the people who participated in it, or even the laws that allowed it to happen but at the identity of American society itself.

The only aspect of America that liberals seem never to criticize is the government or at least the authority it holds over people. Its the reason why tea party protesters were criticized by left-leaning CNN as "anti-government" as if being "anti-government" is a great sin yet the criticism of being "anti-government" never gets the same defense from the left as being anti-American.

Every person has the power to form whatever opinion they have of America they wish even if that opinion is negative but they also have the same power to form an opinion of the general authority of the state as can be formed of American culture, history, and people.

The left does not seem to want to recognize this fact because those that do criticize the general authority of the state are labeled as "anti-government", "militia members", or "right-wing terrorist". The lack of vigorous defense, fear, and disdain for people who criticize the general authority of the state in the same way those that criticize America reflects a thinking on the left that the authority of the state is a complimentary part of human existence in which no person can be complete without.

How DARE the left criticize such noble American ideals like starting wars, torturing human beings or allowing corporations to poison the water we drink and the air we breathe!!! What a bunch of anti-American creeps come from the left!!!

If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-ative Christians tree huggers?

Just to be clear, is it your position that under Democrats, no wars were waged, no people were tortured and no pollution was emitted?

 

[oreo]

Liberals spend their entire time bashing America and spend every ounce of their intellectual energy in finding new ways they can make America look evil by writing a ton of history about things that have happened such as slavery. Now its one thing to acknowledge or point out the evils of slavery but the entire tone of their criticism is never directed at the institution of slavery, the people who participated in it, or even the laws that allowed it to happen but at the identity of American society itself.

The only aspect of America that liberals seem never to criticize is the government or at least the authority it holds over people. Its the reason why tea party protesters were criticized by left-leaning CNN as "anti-government" as if being "anti-government" is a great sin yet the criticism of being "anti-government" never gets the same defense from the left as being anti-American.

Every person has the power to form whatever opinion they have of America they wish even if that opinion is negative but they also have the same power to form an opinion of the general authority of the state as can be formed of American culture, history, and people.

The left does not seem to want to recognize this fact because those that do criticize the general authority of the state are labeled as "anti-government", "militia members", or "right-wing terrorist". The lack of vigorous defense, fear, and disdain for people who criticize the general authority of the state in the same way those that criticize America reflects a thinking on the left that the authority of the state is a complimentary part of human existence in which no person can be complete without.

There is a saying: "You don't trust politicians of either party- & you certainly don't trust Government--but in the end you can trust your countrymen."

In your countrymen you can trust. Who have seen the real countrymen of late: They have gone out in freezing temperatures--carrying signs--they are typically middle aged--middle class Americans. Most of these American patriots have never protested anything in their lives. They are called the tea party movement. They are your countrymen & they are trying to stop this government from running over YOU.--

They are the TRUE PATRIOTS--the Paul Revere's of this country today.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals spend their entire time bashing America and spend every ounce of their intellectual energy in finding new ways they can make America look evil by writing a ton of history about things that have happened such as slavery. Now its one thing to acknowledge or point out the evils of slavery but the entire tone of their criticism is never directed at the institution of slavery, the people who participated in it, or even the laws that allowed it to happen but at the identity of American society itself.

The only aspect of America that liberals seem never to criticize is the government or at least the authority it holds over people. Its the reason why tea party protesters were criticized by left-leaning CNN as "anti-government" as if being "anti-government" is a great sin yet the criticism of being "anti-government" never gets the same defense from the left as being anti-American.

Every person has the power to form whatever opinion they have of America they wish even if that opinion is negative but they also have the same power to form an opinion of the general authority of the state as can be formed of American culture, history, and people.

The left does not seem to want to recognize this fact because those that do criticize the general authority of the state are labeled as "anti-government", "militia members", or "right-wing terrorist". The lack of vigorous defense, fear, and disdain for people who criticize the general authority of the state in the same way those that criticize America reflects a thinking on the left that the authority of the state is a complimentary part of human existence in which no person can be complete without.

How DARE the left criticize such noble American ideals like starting wars, torturing human beings or allowing corporations to poison the water we drink and the air we breathe!!! What a bunch of anti-American creeps come from the left!!!

If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-ative Christians tree huggers?

Just to be clear, is it your position that under Democrats, no wars were waged, no people were tortured and no pollution was emitted?

I never said that, are we clear? Crystal?

Ironic, it was the left and the so called "in the bag" liberal MSM that brought down LBJ, the most liberal president in the last half of the 20th century...and it was the same Democrats who love the Kennedys and wanted another Kennedy in the White House, that rejected and blocked Ted Kennedy's bid to reside there...


"My hero is St. Francis of Assisi because he understood the connection between spirituality and the environment. He understood the way God communicates to us most forcefully is through the fish, the birds and the trees and that it is a sin to destroy those things."
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

 

[drsmith1072]

Yea, people who don't get the Constitution make that mistake. I suggest you educate yourself on your Constitution. Find out what the founders themselves said about phrases such as 'general welfare'. Saying it time after time, like some mantra, doesn't make it true.

I've read the founders and those whom they drew their political thought from. The central promise behind the principle of liberty is the individual as their own sovereign. For something to be unconstitutional it has to strip away my right to act as my own sovereign. Preventing me from marring the person I loved would do this. Government control of my body would do this. Allowing a common access to health-care doesn't do this though. This is why I asked you the question. As a constitutionalist why don't you just answer my question instead of ducking them.

1) Not allowing you to 'marry' a relative already exists.... And redefining marriage is not the function of government

first off, marriage is a religious institution and therefore no marriages should not be recognized by the federal government. However, to recognize one and not the other based on a beliefs of some is IMO in direct violation of the contitution incluing equal protection.

2) You already have common access to health care... but since it is your PERSONAL health you have the PERSONAL responsibility to pay for it... Your body and your well being is not PUBLIC DOMAIN.... There is nothing in the constitution, PERIOD, that gives you the right of personal care at the expense of someone else...

Just curious, where is it written in the constitution that gives people the right to breed (child tax credits) at the expense of someone else??

BTW I have to ask when are you going to take a stance against medicare. Since that would seem to fit into your argument why aren't those on the right railing against that??

 

[drsmith1072]

I'm surprised you don't know but it's this... We the People of the United States, 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 for the United States of America.

See that shit about Liberty and Posterity? That.

Well I see a lot of shit, you've written, but I fail to see how promoting the general welfare through a single payer system is unconstitutional or prevents me from liberty.

Yea, people who don't get the Constitution make that mistake. I suggest you educate yourself on your Constitution. Find out what the founders themselves said about phrases such as 'general welfare'. Saying it time after time, like some mantra, doesn't make it true.

That's hilarious, he asked you for specifics you provide none and then you attack him for calling you out for presenting ZERO specifics. LOL

 

[DiamondDave]

I've read the founders and those whom they drew their political thought from. The central promise behind the principle of liberty is the individual as their own sovereign. For something to be unconstitutional it has to strip away my right to act as my own sovereign. Preventing me from marring the person I loved would do this. Government control of my body would do this. Allowing a common access to health-care doesn't do this though. This is why I asked you the question. As a constitutionalist why don't you just answer my question instead of ducking them.

1) Not allowing you to 'marry' a relative already exists.... And redefining marriage is not the function of government

first off, marriage is a religious institution and therefore no marriages should not be recognized by the federal government. However, to recognize one and not the other based on a beliefs of some is IMO in direct violation of the contitution incluing equal protection.

2) You already have common access to health care... but since it is your PERSONAL health you have the PERSONAL responsibility to pay for it... Your body and your well being is not PUBLIC DOMAIN.... There is nothing in the constitution, PERIOD, that gives you the right of personal care at the expense of someone else...

Just curious, where is it written in the constitution that gives people the right to breed (child tax credits) at the expense of someone else??

BTW I have to ask when are you going to take a stance against medicare. Since that would seem to fit into your argument why aren't those on the right railing against that??

So you are saying that you would be ok with the government allowing any two persons to marry?? Any two persons at all?

I have spoken against medicaid and against many things with medicare

Tax Credits do not equal a right to breed... and that tax credit is not at the expense of someone else... that tax credit is not having the government provide you a service at the expense of someone else's contribution... but nice try... but I have spoken in favor of a simplified and completely equal % tax code on every dollar earned by every US citizen, with the elimination of deductions and loopholes

 

[drsmith1072]

I think that depends on your definition of 'America'. I think that it means two different things depending on whether you are left or right. The left see the founding principle as something broken needing to be fixed, and the right see it as something to be returned to.

The right bemoan the ending of America as the ending of the American Dream - the ideals, it's founding principles. The left see it as an opporunity to hand responsibility for their decisions to someone else so when they fail, they won't be responsible.

Except that it never existed other than in mythology.

For centuries, this country - like all other countries - did NOT ascribe rights of life, liberty and property to all of its citizens. When it was first being written, it applied to white males who owned property. Slavery existed for the first century of this nation's existence, and a whole race of people was disenfranchised for another century in large swaths of the country. Women did not have full legal rights until 1920.

The ideals of America are the best in the world, IMHO. However, we should not idealize a past that has never existed. That is what conservatives are guilty of.

Perspective.

Throughout much of history, society depended on the subjegation of others as slaves. The word comes from Latin and meant those from the Slavic countries because that is where the Romans took them at the time. Human rights have suffered from this paralax view since before history was written. Slaves were used by Pharoah before the Bible was written.

The slavery of the USA was not unique nor was it original. It was the end of the institution in North America and an afront to the stated ideals of the Founders when read literally, but not with the paralax view used by the intelligencia of that time or any time before then.

That Jefferson owned slaves does not reduce the power, the eloquence or the prima facia truth of the words he wrote. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." What a thought this is. It is, by and of itself, the Revolution.

The drive to attain this ideal has changed the world. Literally. If we believe that this thinking might have existed in the past and we should try to re-attain it, I don't know why you would think this is bad. If you think that we should condemn those who believed this in the context of the world in which they lived, again, I don't know why you would think this should be done.

If a lofty ideal is held up to emulate, one that has changed a world to one of Democracies from one of Monarchies and Dictatorships, what could possibly be bad about that? Please recall that there were about 5 democracies on Earth in 1890.

In light of this, you are defending group-thought that delights in picking fly poop out of pepper while the feast rots on table. Go ahead and eat the feast today. You might end up with a little fly poop, but who cares? If you can't stand the thought of it, then don't use the pepper.

Why condemn Jefferson or Franklin or Washington or Adams for seeing the world in the context of their time. Why not exhalt in the fruition of their thoughts and their ability to see the furure in the context of the potential of their dreams.

perspective?? Seems like nothing but a long drawn out attempt to make excuses for slavery in the US while pretending that merely believing something existed justifies trying to go back to something that never existed. LOL.

oh and BTW I don't think he condemned any of who you claim he did but then where would an interesting piece of fiction be without the dramatic fictionalized finish.

 

[drsmith1072]

Yea, people who don't get the Constitution make that mistake. I suggest you educate yourself on your Constitution. Find out what the founders themselves said about phrases such as 'general welfare'. Saying it time after time, like some mantra, doesn't make it true.

I've read the founders and those whom they drew their political thought from. The central promise behind the principle of liberty is the individual as their own sovereign. For something to be unconstitutional it has to strip away my right to act as my own sovereign. Preventing me from marring the person I loved would do this. Government control of my body would do this. Allowing a common access to health-care doesn't do this though. This is why I asked you the question. As a constitutionalist why don't you just answer my question instead of ducking them.

Simple answer: taking from some people to pay for another's healthcare is interferring with 'their' right to act as their own sovereign.

Gov run healthcare is taking control of citizens' bodies. Can you show anywhere in these bill that offer protection for patients/citizens' rights? Can you explain where it says the gov cannot 'require' patient participation in medical experimentation, involutary organ donation, suicide, or any other horror you can imagine? My point: if it is not there, it IS posssible, and the gov is using this 'platform' to SUBJUGATE the population, not represent them.

So when are you going to start taking medicare away from seniors?? After all is that taking from some people to pay for another's healthcare?? I can't wait to see that as part of teh republican platform as it causes them to crash and burn. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Most people did have liberty but what you are speaking of is voting rights which is not the same thing as saying you are free. The concept of the founders was that government, in order to preserve freedom for all including non-white males, government had to stay out of society as little as possible and only acted as a go-between for two parties. In this enviroment it is possible for a black, white, women, or whatever to pursue their own interest without any government authority interfering with their pursuits.

Except, of course, that did not really happen. Once again, you are idealizing a time that did not exist.

Most blacks were slaves and women were considered the legal property of their husbands. Segregation and the restrictions of the actions of and movements by blacks by state governments occurred for 100 years after the Civil War. How can you possibly call this anything other than a gross violation of individuals' freedoms and liberties? These were legal restrictions that were imposed by many state governments. That the Founding Fathers wrote noble ideals does not change the fact that these ideals were not applied to the population as a whole.

The problem with many conservatives is that they think that taxes are what defines government interference in people's lives. Your economic life is only one part of your life. Restrictions on your social actions and legal rights are every bit as relevant to one's freedom as taxes.

You are judging people in the past by standards of today. Recognizing that there have been changes in what constitutes justice, fairness or legality is separate from judging those who operated within a society in which those standards were different than in your own society. The former guages the evolution of thought while the latter is simply a debating tactic.

From where I sit, limiting the strength of the government starts with limiting the level of taxation. You seem to be consumed by a fear that a Conservative will tell you that you cannot do a particular thing. Liberal or Conservative, if a government has no money to enforce its will, no enforcement of that will can have potency.

With the programs being discussed by the Dems right now including health care, cap & trade, additional sin taxes now to be levied on Mountain Dew and such, strengthening the CAFE standards with big penalties and so on, we are looking at real live increases in taxation on EVERYTHING that we use to live. Higher prices means fewer widgets purchased with every dollar.

If I run out of money due to higher taxes before I have purchased those things that I want to purchase in my pursuit of happiness, this is a real limitation of my freedom. If you have heard that the government might be able to overhear your cell phone conversations and whip yourself into a frenzy that you are in danger, that is a sign of your need for counseling.

What are the particular restrictions on you social actions and legal rights that you are concerned with?

why don't you stop trying to insert your opinion over his as you try to tell him what you believe he is doing and actually READ what he is saying and respond to what he actually said?

 

[editec]

What a load of toxic blather.

 

[drsmith1072]

Yea, people who don't get the Constitution make that mistake. I suggest you educate yourself on your Constitution. Find out what the founders themselves said about phrases such as 'general welfare'. Saying it time after time, like some mantra, doesn't make it true.

I've read the founders and those whom they drew their political thought from. The central promise behind the principle of liberty is the individual as their own sovereign. For something to be unconstitutional it has to strip away my right to act as my own sovereign. Preventing me from marring the person I loved would do this. Government control of my body would do this. Allowing a common access to health-care doesn't do this though. This is why I asked you the question. As a constitutionalist why don't you just answer my question instead of ducking them.

I am not against equal rights for same sex couples, I am against forcing churches to marry same sex couples if that is against the church's beliefs.

Who is advocating this?? As far as I know most only want the same rights that other have and that is to be married and if they belong to a church that will marry them then why shouldn't the governemnt recognize their marriage as it does any marriage between a man and a woman?

This 'access to health care' isn't about 'access' it is forcing people to have health care. That is not constitutional. You do not have the right to force me to have health insurance. This 'general welfare' that politicians claim provides for healthcare, does not provide for healthcare. You may not like that but that doesn't change the facts.

it's quite interesting how you equate your opinions to facts.

Also, on the subject of healthcare, until the SC rules that it will be legal to refuse cover for illegals, then I am not prepared to take anyone's word for it. The SC has already ruled on similar and it is likely that illegals will get access to health care. I don't care what anyone says - I am not paying for fucking illegal aliens to get 'free' healthcare. It is NOT free if someone else is paying for it.

So they receive emergency care, not healthcare coverage, now but you are trying to argue against the current helath care bill because illegals will continue to recieve emergency care?? I'm sorry but that just doesn't make any sense.

 

[drsmith1072]

1) Not allowing you to 'marry' a relative already exists.... And redefining marriage is not the function of government

first off, marriage is a religious institution and therefore no marriages should not be recognized by the federal government. However, to recognize one and not the other based on a beliefs of some is IMO in direct violation of the contitution incluing equal protection.

2) You already have common access to health care... but since it is your PERSONAL health you have the PERSONAL responsibility to pay for it... Your body and your well being is not PUBLIC DOMAIN.... There is nothing in the constitution, PERIOD, that gives you the right of personal care at the expense of someone else...

Just curious, where is it written in the constitution that gives people the right to breed (child tax credits) at the expense of someone else??

BTW I have to ask when are you going to take a stance against medicare. Since that would seem to fit into your argument why aren't those on the right railing against that??

So you are saying that you would be ok with the government allowing any two persons to marry?? Any two persons at all?

Did i say that?? Really?? I don't think i said that but since you believe I did could you show me where i said it??

I have spoken against medicaid and against many things with medicare

wow that's nice and all but when is the republican party going to start using that as part of their platform?? Since they are allegedly against socialized medicine and IF they were honest they would be railing agianst medicare as well. However, they are not and instead the repubs are trying to manipulate the elderly into supporting them as the right attacks socialized medicine out of one side of their face as they claim to be protecting medicare for the elderly out of the other side.

Tax Credits do not equal a right to breed...and that tax credit is not at the expense of someone else... that tax credit is not having the government provide you a service at the expense of someone else's contribution... but nice try... but I have spoken in favor of a simplified and completely equal % tax code on every dollar earned by every US citizen, with the elimination of deductions and loopholes

WOW more made up shite. I NEVER said that it equaled the RIGHT to breed but thanks for trying to attribute something to me that I NEVER SAID.

 

[Misty]

I am for smaller government-lower taxes. I include our government's involvement with giving away our money to other countries.

 

[California Girl]

Well I see a lot of shit, you've written, but I fail to see how promoting the general welfare through a single payer system is unconstitutional or prevents me from liberty.

Yea, people who don't get the Constitution make that mistake. I suggest you educate yourself on your Constitution. Find out what the founders themselves said about phrases such as 'general welfare'. Saying it time after time, like some mantra, doesn't make it true.

That's hilarious, he asked you for specifics you provide none and then you attack him for calling you out for presenting ZERO specifics. LOL

It's the Constitution! I work on the theory that everyone should know what the Constitution means. If they do not comprehend what 'general welfare' was defined as, it is not for me to educate them on it. It is for them to educate themselves. I am not here to spoon feed idiots. However.... “general Welfare”, i.e., the enjoyment of peace & prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society & civil government, Anything there about healthcare? Nope.