Republicans and the Affordable Care Act

[dblack]

Then amend your state's constitution, with the help of the majority.

You don't seem to be grasping this concept, or maybe you just don't want do acknowledge it. If your conception of freedom is (as it seems) that it is always subordinate to the will of the majority, then we are never going to agree. There's more to political life than might makes right.

Thankfully. I did when I was younger and less informed. But now that I'm older and better informed I have indeed rejected such concepts, since they're in conflict with the laws of this land and the freedoms the Framers intended.

What do you mean? Just to be clear, are you rejecting individual liberty when it conflicts with the will of the majority? That's a pretty radical position, but I appreciate the honesty, if nothing else.

 

[Koios]

You don't seem to be grasping this concept, or maybe you just don't want do acknowledge it. If your conception of freedom is (as it seems) that it is always subordinate to the will of the majority, then we are never going to agree. There's more to political life than might makes right.

Thankfully. I did when I was younger and less informed. But now that I'm older and better informed I have indeed rejected such concepts, since they're in conflict with the laws of this land and the freedoms the Framers intended.

What do you mean? Just to be clear, are you rejecting individual liberty when it conflicts with the will of the majority? That's a pretty radical position, but I appreciate the honesty, if nothing else.

I mean you're wrong. So to be clear, I'm rejecting your interpretation of individual liberty, until such time as it's the overwhelming majority that wishes to change it, via the Amendment Process. Call me a radical, if that works for you. Adams and Jefferson were, and I like how it turned out.

 

[Oddball]

Thankfully. I did when I was younger and less informed. But now that I'm older and better informed I have indeed rejected such concepts, since they're in conflict with the laws of this land and the freedoms the Framers intended.

What do you mean? Just to be clear, are you rejecting individual liberty when it conflicts with the will of the majority? That's a pretty radical position, but I appreciate the honesty, if nothing else.

I mean you're wrong. So to be clear, I'm rejecting your interpretation of individual liberty, until such time as it's the overwhelming majority that wishes to change it...

And thugs like this have the nerve to call libertarians anarchists!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Have a drink for me too, Koios.

 

[dblack]

I mean you're wrong. So to be clear, I'm rejecting your interpretation of individual liberty, until such time as it's the overwhelming majority that wishes to change it, via the Amendment Process. Call me a radical, if that works for you. Adams and Jefferson were, and I like how it turned out.

What am I wrong about? What about my interpretation of individual liberty are you rejecting? The proposition that it should be protected from the will of the majority?

 

[Koios]

Have a drink for me too, Koios.

Okie doke. What's your preferred? I have a $1200 bottle of Cognac (Cordon Bleu Centenary) that's got about half left in it, which I drink to celebrate. Is this a worthy occassion?

 

[Koios]

I mean you're wrong. So to be clear, I'm rejecting your interpretation of individual liberty, until such time as it's the overwhelming majority that wishes to change it, via the Amendment Process. Call me a radical, if that works for you. Adams and Jefferson were, and I like how it turned out.

What am I wrong about? What about my interpretation of individual liberty are you rejecting? The proposition that it should be protected from the will of the majority?

That what you believe freedom is defines our liberties.

 

[dblack]

I mean you're wrong. So to be clear, I'm rejecting your interpretation of individual liberty, until such time as it's the overwhelming majority that wishes to change it, via the Amendment Process. Call me a radical, if that works for you. Adams and Jefferson were, and I like how it turned out.

What am I wrong about? What about my interpretation of individual liberty are you rejecting? The proposition that it should be protected from the will of the majority?

That what you believe freedom is defines our liberties.

I'm not at all clear on what you're saying. What about my beliefs are you opposed to? Do you think individual liberty should protected from the will of the majority?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Have a drink for me too, Koios.

Okie doke. What's your preferred? I have a $1200 bottle of Cognac (Cordon Bleu Centenary) that's got about half left in it, which I drink to celebrate. Is this a worthy occassion?

Sure, I'll have a half glass of Miller High Life, thanks.

 

[Oddball]

What am I wrong about? What about my interpretation of individual liberty are you rejecting? The proposition that it should be protected from the will of the majority?

That what you believe freedom is defines our liberties.

I'm not at all clear on what you're saying. What about my beliefs are you opposed to? Do you think individual liberty should protected from the will of the majority?

He believes that the only "freedom" you have comes by way of the rule of the mob, and not by your inherent natural right to control your own life and destiny.

His is the exact despotic mindset that repulsed the framers.

 

[Koios]

What am I wrong about? What about my interpretation of individual liberty are you rejecting? The proposition that it should be protected from the will of the majority?

That what you believe freedom is defines our liberties.

I'm not at all clear on what you're saying. What about my beliefs are you opposed to? Do you think individual liberty should protected from the will of the majority?

I think blue is the best color, as long as it's the right blue and not too blue. (insert freedom or liberty in place of blue and it still works ... subjective as all get out)

Now then, back in America: once was a time we were ruled by Kings and/or Gods. That was rejected in lieu of a republican (small r) self-governance experiment. More specifically, we are ruled by laws, which were chosen by a VERY few, who thought their ideas were so correct that changing them requires a rather significant super-majority, I'll call a super-duper-majority for sake of argument.

But not all freedoms they deemed right for us proved as correct as they thought. So some freedoms have been removed:

1. We're no longer free to own slaves
2. We're no longer free to treat our wives as chattle and vote for them

Others, too, have been eliminated, oft to the chagrin of those who thought their freedoms trumped the will of the majority, which as it turned out, the vast majority did decide to change, and could, and did.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Vague drinking poster is vague and drinking. Not incoherent, but relatively free of any point and mostly wrong about history.

it happens!

 

[Koios]

Vague drinking poster is vague and drinking. Not incoherent, but relatively free of any point and mostly wrong about history.

it happens!

Don't beat yourself up, pal. I knew it was over your head when I wrote it.

But I'm holding out hope the guy I was in fact replying to is not quite as daft. Fingers crossed.

 

[dblack]

That what you believe freedom is defines our liberties.

I'm not at all clear on what you're saying. What about my beliefs are you opposed to? Do you think individual liberty should protected from the will of the majority?

I think blue is the best color, as long as it's the right blue and not too blue. (insert freedom or liberty in place of blue and it still works ... subjective as all get out)

Now then, back in America: once was a time we were ruled by Kings and/or Gods. That was rejected in lieu of a republican (small r) self-governance experiment. More specifically, we are ruled by laws, which were chosen by a VERY few, who thought their ideas were so correct that changing them requires a rather significant super-majority, I'll call a super-duper-majority for sake of argument.

But not all freedoms they deemed right for us proved as correct as they thought. So some freedoms have been removed:

1. We're no longer free to own slaves
2. We're no longer free to treat our wives as chattle and vote for them

Others, too, have been eliminated, oft to the chagrin of those who thought their freedoms trumped the will of the majority, which as it turned out, the vast majority did decide to change, and could, and did.

I would hope you'd agree that laws banning slavery and spousal abuse are protecting individual freedom - not limiting it. Liberty doesn't claim the right to harm others. It claims the right to do as we please as long as it we don't violate the same right of others. So I'm not sure what you were getting at with your examples.

 

[Koios]

I'm not at all clear on what you're saying. What about my beliefs are you opposed to? Do you think individual liberty should protected from the will of the majority?

I think blue is the best color, as long as it's the right blue and not too blue. (insert freedom or liberty in place of blue and it still works ... subjective as all get out)

Now then, back in America: once was a time we were ruled by Kings and/or Gods. That was rejected in lieu of a republican (small r) self-governance experiment. More specifically, we are ruled by laws, which were chosen by a VERY few, who thought their ideas were so correct that changing them requires a rather significant super-majority, I'll call a super-duper-majority for sake of argument.

But not all freedoms they deemed right for us proved as correct as they thought. So some freedoms have been removed:

1. We're no longer free to own slaves
2. We're no longer free to treat our wives as chattle and vote for them

Others, too, have been eliminated, oft to the chagrin of those who thought their freedoms trumped the will of the majority, which as it turned out, the vast majority did decide to change, and could, and did.

I would hope you'd agree that laws banning slavery and spousal abuse are protecting individual freedom - not limiting it. Liberty doesn't claim the right to harm others. It claims the right to do as we please as long as it we don't violate the same right of others. So I'm not sure what you were getting at with your examples.

Glad you went there.

Indeed. But hear me out. Philosophical thinking on one's Freedom/Liberty versus another, was not even a factor beyond its effect on majority beliefs. No Supreme Court ruling corrected the "wrong." (in quotes since it too is subjective.)

We had to change the laws. Amendments to the Constitution made the change, in our defined, and thus (mostly) unambiguous, Freedoms and Liberties. And it was a super-duper-majority that was needed to make the change ... and not just you or me having our own thoughts on what Liberty v. Tyranny is or is not.

We're a land ruled by laws. Fact.

Among them is the right for folks to believe in Tea Party ideals, Libertarianism, or whatever, which is defined in OUR LAWS. But as long as they (or you) are a tiny minority, you haven't the power to change laws to your wishes. But your right to believe what you will and speak out on it cannot change, except by a super-duper-majority eliminating the First Amendment. (nothing I advocate)

 

[dblack]

Indeed. But hear me out. Philosophical thinking on one's Freedom/Liberty versus another, was not even a factor beyond its effect on majority beliefs. No Supreme Court ruling corrected the "wrong." (in quotes since it too is subjective.)

We had to change the laws. Amendments to the Constitution made the change, in our defined, and thus (mostly) unambiguous, Freedoms and Liberties. And it was a super-duper-majority that was needed to make the change ... and not just you or me having our own thoughts on what Liberty v. Tyranny is or is not.

We're a land ruled by laws. Fact.

Among them is the right for folks to believe in Tea Party ideals, Libertarianism, or whatever, which is defined in OUR LAWS. But as long as they (or you) are a tiny minority, you haven't the power to change laws to your wishes. But your right to believe what you will and speak out on it cannot change, except by a super-duper-majority eliminating the First Amendment. (nothing I advocate)

So this still isn't very clear to me. It seems like what you're saying is that our rights are determined by majority rule. And that's what I'm rejecting. Outside of amending the Constitution, the government is limited in what it can compel us to do - regardless of whether it enjoys the support of the majority or not. When the 'super-duper-majority' agrees, we can create new powers for government - but that is deliberately an onerous process.

In any case, we're not talking about amending the Constitution. We're talking about it's role limiting the power of government, implicitly limiting the power of the majority, to impose it's will on the minority.

Let's back up a couple of steps and let me ask you this. In general, how do you think the power of government should be limited? Should it be able to do whatever it wants as long as the majority supports it? Should it be able to do whatever it wants as long is it doesn't violate certain enumerated rights? Or should it be constrained to only specific functions spelled out in the Constitution?

 

[Koios]

Indeed. But hear me out. Philosophical thinking on one's Freedom/Liberty versus another, was not even a factor beyond its effect on majority beliefs. No Supreme Court ruling corrected the "wrong." (in quotes since it too is subjective.)

We had to change the laws. Amendments to the Constitution made the change, in our defined, and thus (mostly) unambiguous, Freedoms and Liberties. And it was a super-duper-majority that was needed to make the change ... and not just you or me having our own thoughts on what Liberty v. Tyranny is or is not.

We're a land ruled by laws. Fact.

Among them is the right for folks to believe in Tea Party ideals, Libertarianism, or whatever, which is defined in OUR LAWS. But as long as they (or you) are a tiny minority, you haven't the power to change laws to your wishes. But your right to believe what you will and speak out on it cannot change, except by a super-duper-majority eliminating the First Amendment. (nothing I advocate)

So this still isn't very clear to me. It seems like what you're saying is that our rights are determined by majority rule. And that's what I'm rejecting. Outside of amending the Constitution, the government is limited in what it can compel us to do - regardless of whether it enjoys the support of the majority or not. When the 'super-duper-majority' agrees, we can create new powers for government - but that is deliberately an onerous process.

In any case, we're not talking about amending the Constitution. We're talking about it's role limiting the power of government, implicitly limiting the power of the majority, to impose it's will on the minority.

Let's back up a couple of steps and let me ask you this. In general, how do you think the power of government should be limited? Should it be able to do whatever it wants as long as the majority supports it? Should be able to do whatever it wants as long is it doesn't violate enumerated rights? Or should it be constrained to only specific functions spelled out in the Constitution?

No. Our rights were determined by a tiny few (Framers) and established in law. Then they can be changed by a super-duper-majority, once ratified by 3/4s of the states.

As for limits on the government (state and federal), within the confines of the law, they created a High Court ... aka our Supreme Court, which was orginially thought to be populated by persons of unquestioned integrity and stature. None had to be an attorney even, and non attorneys have been SCJs. But today, a great legal mind, and sadly more so these days, a consistent record on past rulings to be more sure of how they'll rule in the future, seems to be who populates the Court. Not ideal, but indeed within the democratic process set forth, subject to a majority vote as well.

And as imperfect as that might be, it's exactly how I believe the power of government should be limited: Let our representatives, as decided by a majority of the voters, do whatever they believe advances the general welfare, insofar as the Supreme Court does not rule (by majority) it unconstitutional.

Even DOMA, which I loathe, is law, in America. That I accept, but anxiously await the majority to demand that the majority-enacted tyranny on a minority, be overturned, either by a majority of SCJs or our elected representatives.

If that is not clear, I cannot help you further. Sorry.

 

[dblack]

As for limits on the government (state and federal), within the confines of the law, they created a High Court ... aka our Supreme Court, which was orginially thought to be populated by persons of unquestioned integrity and stature. None had to be an attorney even, and non attorneys have been SCJs. But today, a great legal mind, and sadly more so these days, a consistent record on past rulings to be more sure of how they'll rule in the future, seems to be who populates the Court. Not ideal, but indeed within the democratic process set forth, subject to a majority vote as well.

And as imperfect as that might be, it's exactly how I believe the power of government should be limited: Let our representatives, as decided by a majority of the voters, do whatever they believe advances the general welfare, insofar as the Supreme Court does not rule (by majority) it unconstitutional.

If that is not clear, I cannot help you further. Sorry.

Maybe that means you are done talking about it, but just in case ...

Maybe I wasn't clear myself, but I wasn't asking for the technical process of how government power is limited, but rather what rules and principles that the Court applies in deciding whether a law is unconstitutional or not. I'm trying to get a sense for what you think is the proper role of majority rule - how and when it should be limited. I've asked you some pretty direct questions to that end:

In general, how do you think the power of government should be limited? Should it be able to do whatever it wants as long as the majority supports it? Should it be able to do whatever it wants as long is it doesn't violate certain enumerated rights? Or should it be constrained to only specific functions spelled out in the Constitution?

These questions are central to political discussion. If we can't find consensus there, there's not much to go forward with. So it seems a good place to start.

EDIT:

This point might actually get closer to a real discussion:

Even DOMA, which I loathe, is law, in America. That I accept, but anxiously await the majority to demand that the majority-enacted tyranny on a minority, be overturned, either by a majority of SCJs or our elected representatives.

In your view, what justification would the SC have for overturning DOMA?

 

[Koios]

As for limits on the government (state and federal), within the confines of the law, they created a High Court ... aka our Supreme Court, which was orginially thought to be populated by persons of unquestioned integrity and stature. None had to be an attorney even, and non attorneys have been SCJs. But today, a great legal mind, and sadly more so these days, a consistent record on past rulings to be more sure of how they'll rule in the future, seems to be who populates the Court. Not ideal, but indeed within the democratic process set forth, subject to a majority vote as well.

And as imperfect as that might be, it's exactly how I believe the power of government should be limited: Let our representatives, as decided by a majority of the voters, do whatever they believe advances the general welfare, insofar as the Supreme Court does not rule (by majority) it unconstitutional.

If that is not clear, I cannot help you further. Sorry.

Maybe that means you are done talking about it, but just in case ...

Maybe I wasn't clear myself, but I wasn't asking for the technical process of how government power is limited, but rather what rules and principles that the Court applies in deciding whether a law is unconstitutional or not. I'm trying to get a sense for what you think is the proper role of majority rule - how and when it should be limited. I've asked you some pretty direct questions to that end:

In general, how do you think the power of government should be limited? Should it be able to do whatever it wants as long as the majority supports it? Should it be able to do whatever it wants as long is it doesn't violate certain enumerated rights? Or should it be constrained to only specific functions spelled out in the Constitution?

These questions are central to political discussion. If we can't find consensus there, there's not much to go forward with. So it seems a good place to start.

EDIT:

This point might actually get closer to a real discussion:

Even DOMA, which I loathe, is law, in America. That I accept, but anxiously await the majority to demand that the majority-enacted tyranny on a minority, be overturned, either by a majority of SCJs or our elected representatives.

In your view, what justification would the SC have for overturning DOMA?

Perhaps, but obviously not.

And we are discussing it, even if it does not go in the direction you wish, which I'll speculate trends toward the Libertarian Postulate:

Concoct a theory on how stuff you don't want to pay for should not be, since the theory purports it to be unconstitutional or only a state's right. Fine. But I disagree.

Moreover, it's wrong. We have a process in place which governs it. If it's happening, and no ruling has barred it on constitutional grounds, it is what it is: An American policy and law of our land. Period.

Nor do I wish it to change, it being the process. I happen to believe that the American form of government is the best mankind has yet created. Call me America-centric, since I am ... no disrespect to folks in Central America who think Simon Bolivar worthy of sainthood, nor Chinese who adore Chairman Mao's memory. We all have our heros, and mine are the Founding Fathers, even if they marginalized Blacks and Women ... since they also gave us the power to amend those shortcomings.

 

[Koios]

Empasis added:

In your view, what justification would the SC have for overturning DOMA?

On the grounds that it legislates unequal treatment under law of a minority, LBGT Americans.