emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
I posted this to friends with Pacific Public Radio and other progressive advocates for depending on Govt for providing Social Welfare.
I already explained that (1) passing any such laws through Govt must still respect all other Constitutional laws and protections against violating liberty without "due process" to prove which parties created a debt or abuse, or prove the LEAST RESTRICTIVE means for meeting a "compelling govt interest" (for universal health care, research will show nonprofit Cooperatives or medical associations are the Least Restrictive and most cost effective way to ensure best quality practices while protecting equal Constitutional free choice of beliefs, including right to life right to health care etc).
I also warned that (2) handing control of health care and social benefits to govt gives up the leverage and authority to Politicians Parties and Corporate interests running govt, instead of keeping the resources and control over policies with the people who can own and manage their own Cooperatives democratically including federal clinics and grants. Giving up this leverage means enslaving people to depend on politicians to decide policies and benefits instead of people protecting free choice.
(3) Below is my msg explaining to another Poster that involving Govt in Social Policies introduces the whole conflict against Govt dictating moral conditions and standards attached. Unless All People and States agree on terms and conditions for social services through federal govt, that is why I recommend tax breaks and collective cooperative networks run by party where members agree to fund the same policies or benefits without conflicting with other parties and their beliefs.
====== Reply to the post stating you want Govt to tend to social needs but without dictating morals. Billy DadPa Smith
1. First this requires a Constitutional Amendment to expand the duties of federal govt to include the SPECIFIC social services that people and states AGREE to authorize to central govt. Otherwise without consent of the people, you yourself would be dictating this as a moral belief through govt while claiming to oppose moral mandates through govt and thus contradict your own beliefs.
2. Involving govt in social interactions already invokes people's beliefs and moral standards and conditions they would consent to codify through govt or pay taxes to support. That is why most Constitutionlists and Libertarians I know object and do not believe in or consent to "social legislation" through govt. The most they might accept is catastrophic level emergency or disaster level federal help, epidemic outbreaks that affect national security and economy, or grants for medical programs or ensuring enough hospital and clinic facilities, criminal treatment centers, schools or VA sites are democratically distributed to meet population needs. But NOT involving Govt in mandating the policies and programs managed Through those public sites, in order to Prevent moral dictating by Govt. We already have people and parties opposed to Govt dictating policy or taxes involving: prochoice or prolife, pro or anti masks vaccines or shutdowns, terms and conditions on marriage or social benefits, right to health care or free market choice etc.
It is a very narrow window where people COULD agree on both social programs through Govt AND the moral beliefs and conditions attached. Most people do NOT agree on enough to make it mandatory through Govt.
That is why I recommend separating social benefits and tax breaks by Party where big enough groups agree on common terms they can pool their taxes together to manage what they want, statewide and nationally, without conflicting moral dictates between other people and groups with different standards and beliefs about "social interactions" that belong to people or states to decide democratically.
===========
(4) Please review these arguments and clarify if these points are clear enough to call State Governors, Senators and Party Chairs for a Constitutional Convention to address Social policies through Govt or separate tax breaks and administrations that are optional where people disagree and mandatory where we all agree.
I already explained that (1) passing any such laws through Govt must still respect all other Constitutional laws and protections against violating liberty without "due process" to prove which parties created a debt or abuse, or prove the LEAST RESTRICTIVE means for meeting a "compelling govt interest" (for universal health care, research will show nonprofit Cooperatives or medical associations are the Least Restrictive and most cost effective way to ensure best quality practices while protecting equal Constitutional free choice of beliefs, including right to life right to health care etc).
I also warned that (2) handing control of health care and social benefits to govt gives up the leverage and authority to Politicians Parties and Corporate interests running govt, instead of keeping the resources and control over policies with the people who can own and manage their own Cooperatives democratically including federal clinics and grants. Giving up this leverage means enslaving people to depend on politicians to decide policies and benefits instead of people protecting free choice.
(3) Below is my msg explaining to another Poster that involving Govt in Social Policies introduces the whole conflict against Govt dictating moral conditions and standards attached. Unless All People and States agree on terms and conditions for social services through federal govt, that is why I recommend tax breaks and collective cooperative networks run by party where members agree to fund the same policies or benefits without conflicting with other parties and their beliefs.
====== Reply to the post stating you want Govt to tend to social needs but without dictating morals. Billy DadPa Smith
1. First this requires a Constitutional Amendment to expand the duties of federal govt to include the SPECIFIC social services that people and states AGREE to authorize to central govt. Otherwise without consent of the people, you yourself would be dictating this as a moral belief through govt while claiming to oppose moral mandates through govt and thus contradict your own beliefs.
2. Involving govt in social interactions already invokes people's beliefs and moral standards and conditions they would consent to codify through govt or pay taxes to support. That is why most Constitutionlists and Libertarians I know object and do not believe in or consent to "social legislation" through govt. The most they might accept is catastrophic level emergency or disaster level federal help, epidemic outbreaks that affect national security and economy, or grants for medical programs or ensuring enough hospital and clinic facilities, criminal treatment centers, schools or VA sites are democratically distributed to meet population needs. But NOT involving Govt in mandating the policies and programs managed Through those public sites, in order to Prevent moral dictating by Govt. We already have people and parties opposed to Govt dictating policy or taxes involving: prochoice or prolife, pro or anti masks vaccines or shutdowns, terms and conditions on marriage or social benefits, right to health care or free market choice etc.
It is a very narrow window where people COULD agree on both social programs through Govt AND the moral beliefs and conditions attached. Most people do NOT agree on enough to make it mandatory through Govt.
That is why I recommend separating social benefits and tax breaks by Party where big enough groups agree on common terms they can pool their taxes together to manage what they want, statewide and nationally, without conflicting moral dictates between other people and groups with different standards and beliefs about "social interactions" that belong to people or states to decide democratically.
===========
(4) Please review these arguments and clarify if these points are clear enough to call State Governors, Senators and Party Chairs for a Constitutional Convention to address Social policies through Govt or separate tax breaks and administrations that are optional where people disagree and mandatory where we all agree.