emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
A friend of mine brought up a GREAT point, I think,
asking why do Conservatives push for restrictions in one area
but oppose restrictions in another.
I was trying to explain how exemptions/tax penalties on the choice of paying for health care
is unconstitutional overreaching by federal govt, because people should have free choice
of how to pay, without the Federal Govt imposing mandates and regulations on those choices.
I said that if the people committing abuses by not paying are the reason for the restrictions,
then it is wrongful to deprive ALL OTHER citizens of freedom when we didn't commit any crime,
fraud or abuse.
He said then why doesn't that apply to voter's rights.
If the issue is FRAUD, then why restrict ALL OTHER citizens and require ID to vote,
if those are not proven to be the fraudulent abusers committing wrongs.
I thought that was INTERESTING!
It isn't a PERFECT analogy or comparison, but it is close enough to bring up interesting points!
So if people ask "why complain about health insurance if people have to buy car insurance"
that is like asking "why complain about ID to vote if you have to use ID to go to the bank
or ID to buy beer or buy guns"
So at least it set up some ANALOGOUS arguments on the left and right.
Even if it isn't perfectly the same context or laws or logic,
the BIAS is similar coming from one side or the other.
One side "doesn't think any rights are lost by requiring voter ID" and the only opposition is from fraud. And guess what, that is like the other side that "doesn't think any rights are lost by requiring health insurance because people need that anyway."
*Psychologically comparing the perception* behind the reasoning
it is interesting even if logistically the arguments are not the same at all.
The mindsets going into the arguments on both sides are close parallels
to help me understand WHY the two sides don't get the objections of the other.
What do you think?
asking why do Conservatives push for restrictions in one area
but oppose restrictions in another.
I was trying to explain how exemptions/tax penalties on the choice of paying for health care
is unconstitutional overreaching by federal govt, because people should have free choice
of how to pay, without the Federal Govt imposing mandates and regulations on those choices.
I said that if the people committing abuses by not paying are the reason for the restrictions,
then it is wrongful to deprive ALL OTHER citizens of freedom when we didn't commit any crime,
fraud or abuse.
He said then why doesn't that apply to voter's rights.
If the issue is FRAUD, then why restrict ALL OTHER citizens and require ID to vote,
if those are not proven to be the fraudulent abusers committing wrongs.
I thought that was INTERESTING!
It isn't a PERFECT analogy or comparison, but it is close enough to bring up interesting points!
So if people ask "why complain about health insurance if people have to buy car insurance"
that is like asking "why complain about ID to vote if you have to use ID to go to the bank
or ID to buy beer or buy guns"
So at least it set up some ANALOGOUS arguments on the left and right.
Even if it isn't perfectly the same context or laws or logic,
the BIAS is similar coming from one side or the other.
One side "doesn't think any rights are lost by requiring voter ID" and the only opposition is from fraud. And guess what, that is like the other side that "doesn't think any rights are lost by requiring health insurance because people need that anyway."
*Psychologically comparing the perception* behind the reasoning
it is interesting even if logistically the arguments are not the same at all.
The mindsets going into the arguments on both sides are close parallels
to help me understand WHY the two sides don't get the objections of the other.
What do you think?