Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

[Delta4Embassy]

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

By definition, all governments are in the business of forcing unacceptable things onto those they govern. That's what government does and is for. When riding a motorcycle way back, the driving test included slow movement through clsoely space pylons. What real-world situation is that demonstrating competantcy for? Even if at some point you needed to do that in the real world, you COULD put your feet down. Are we imagining a flooded road and downed powerlines or what? But the government forces that absurdly unrealistic test on all motorcyclists. I think the test was designed by someone who hates motocycles. "Let's see what I can devise to make less motocycles on the road."

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, this is how our country runs, and I don't care whether you approve.

How you change it now is by a majority vote or a court ruling, neither of which are foreseeably in the future.

If you don't agree with the court ruling
you change things against with legislative correction or executive orders.
And the process continues until the CONFLICT is resolved.

BTW see below for you JakeStarkey and Dante
No Obamacare Wasn t a Republican Proposal

The Heritage plan is based on insurance for "catastrophic" emergencies only
and was not in support of making ALL health care under federal govt.

The state plans of Romney and MA compared
still recognize STATE and people having rights to vote on this
before they are mandated or taxed on it.

So there is a fundamental difference.

What I find is some people who do NOT believe in the Constitutional principles
reflecting natural laws coming from God first (before Govt)
Cannot understand
* the beliefs of conservatives, Constitutionalists and Christians
which this ACA bill and mandate violates and excludes
* the DIFFERENCE in the spirit and process of the law
between state vs. federal, and agreeing on the laws in advance
and not waiting until after the vote in Congress, after it has passed through the executive
and judicial branch, to try to address the faults that were skirted over as if they
were arbitrary and could be decided like any other laws that pass through govt systems

This mandate crosses lines of beliefs that cannot be mandated or regulated by govt
without CONSENT of the people

So there is something about the differences in political beliefs
that is preventing this from being understood and acknowledged as violating beliefs.

This is similar to people who believe in God as the default truth so
they cannot understand why Atheists object because God controls
everything anyway as the default. They just think Atheists are wrong,
so why should someone who is wrong be able to defend their beliefs.

Christians who cannot distinguish the difference between Muslims
and Jihadists just want to ban both and don't get there is a difference.

There is a difference, a religiously held belief that govt is limited to the
Constitutional authority unless it is amended to give specific duties
and otherwise the DEFAULT is the unspecified powers are reserved
to the people or the states to decide democratically on that level.

So this belief is not being considered equally but ASSUMED
to be met by going through vote of Congress, approval of the
President and passing through the Court.

None of that is the same as a Constitutional Amendment
showing agreement by the several states to give up
authority on health care funding to federal govt.

So a fundamental step was skipped that allowed a
vote to go through on a policy that excludes the beliefs
that would otherwise would have been EQUALLY
represented and included had the proper channels been used.

So the DELIBERATE bypassing of this step, which would
give more equal representation to the people and the states,
is to take advantage and force the bill to pass when it would otherwise fail.

If the bill were truly supported by the American public and the states
there should be NO ISSUE with passing a Constitutional Amendment
first giving SPECIFIC authority to federal govt to create such exchanges
and to issue mandates and tax penalties to fund the programs on that level
instead of reserving these powers to the people and the states.

Even when legislation creating the Federal Reserve is equally contested
as not fully constitutional or checked (as a similar mix of private with public institutions), the use of Federal Reserve notes
is OPTIONAL. You are NOT fined for not using this system. But only if you
do business with entities or govt that requires this currency are you required to use
if they require it. It is perfectly legal and not fined to use other currency
as long as it follows some basic rules to prevent confusion.

So that is why the Federal Reserve has been allowed to continue
because it is optional and nobody is forced to use that money
unless you are dealing with the govt, taxes, or other entities that require it.

The only reason the IRS is allowed to continue is that we consent to use it.
If we organize and no longer consent but change it to something else,
we can.

And with the ACA set up, from the very beginning, from before
it passed it was already contested because it crossed the line
between powers reserved to the people and states that not all
the people agreed to delegate to the federal govt.*

If we were to pass laws on slavery by outnumbering and ignoring the vote
of the people being enslaved, and only counting the vote of
the slave owners in favor, we might be able to get 50% plus one
but it would not be a fair representation, because we
deliberately bypassed the process that would have included
the objections of the people in opposition.

* PS anyone who does not understand this as a political belief
to be respected equally is either too ignorant and negligent in excluding this belief,
or dishonest and malicious in seeking to violate the rights of others.

If it is deliberately abusing partisan pressure to bullying and outnumber
the dissenting beliefs, that could be a form of "conspiring to violate
civil rights" which is either a civil or criminal violation of law.
if it is out of ignorance and negligence, then responsibility for the
burden debts damages and costs is still on the negligent party
who ignored the objections that were verbally and legally presented.

Since this is a POLITICAL BELIEF then the bias by Courts
or Congress cannot be justified just because "people have different beliefs".
The two beliefs must be treated and included equally.
Otherwise those officials in Congress and Courts are GUILTY
of imposing the bias of ONE political belief (or lack thereof) over another.

Dante I was really hoping you can see the bias going on
even if you don't share the beliefs of the political dissenters
who believe their fundamental principles are being violated in this way.

I don't have to agree with Christians or Atheists, Jihadists or Muslims,
to respect their equal right to be under their own laws and not to be
subject to the beliefs of others, no matter how much we may BELIEVE
that our way is right. If they believe otherwise, they have the right to
separate and live under their own laws away and apart from others who don't share these beliefs.

Why can I see this, and everyone else wants to impose their beliefs
as the default way?

Even with my beliefs, I don't require people AGREE to my beliefs,
but respect each other's and separate so we don't impose on each other.
so if you want the ACA and system you fund and follow that,
I'm not asking to take that choice away
but just to add equal choices for people who want to set up health care
and pay for it through free market means and/or systems through their states
WITHOUT it being regulate through federal levels first which they did not consent to.

So that is more equal and inclusive.

Shouldn't the default position be the one that allows
free exercise of religion/beliefs of the different views equally?

 

[emilynghiem]

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

By definition, all governments are in the business of forcing unacceptable things onto those they govern. That's what government does and is for. When riding a motorcycle way back, the driving test included slow movement through clsoely space pylons. What real-world situation is that demonstrating competantcy for? Even if at some point you needed to do that in the real world, you COULD put your feet down. Are we imagining a flooded road and downed powerlines or what? But the government forces that absurdly unrealistic test on all motorcyclists. I think the test was designed by someone who hates motocycles. "Let's see what I can devise to make less motocycles on the road."

But we AGREE to those laws.
Laws are social contracts between people and govt.
Consent of the governed is the basis of law and governance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the majority of the vote ratifies that consent.

Your blessing is not required, Emily.

A note: all of your words mean nothing in and of themselves, because you simply repeat over and over and over: "I am unhappy".

Em, we get that, but the consent of the governed has been given and does not look like it will be withdrawn. If it is, I will obey the law, just as I expect you to obey it now.

 

[emilynghiem]

And the majority of the vote ratifies that consent.

Your blessing is not required, Emily.

A note: all of your words mean nothing in and of themselves, because you simply repeat over and over and over: "I am unhappy".

Em, we get that, but the consent of the governed has been given and does not look like it will be withdrawn. If it is, I will obey the law, just as I expect you to obey it now.

I would agree for issues that do not involve changing the Constitution or involve BELIEFS
that the First Amendment (and Fourteenth) prohibit Congress from establishing bias over.

This ACA mandate dispute involves BOTH.

Constitutional issues of amendment (and/or political beliefs about them)
issues of state vs federal jurisdiction (and/or political beliefs about them)
beliefs about health care and if these are natural rights or not

Anyone who does not want to be found of either
negligently or deliberately violating the equal beliefs of others
should at least acknowledge that there are conflicting beliefs in play here.

And ONE of the issues is whether the vote of Congress
and approval of courts is enough to justify overriding these beliefs.

I am saying by the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
all these levels of BELIEFS must be treated equally
in order to mediate a solution that respects all the beliefs involved here.

To place one belief above others is already
skewing the process to DISCRIMINATE, exclude or demean the
equal beliefs of others with equal right to participate.

The process is SKEWED unless it is facilitated by
neutral parties that can at least ACKNOWLEDGE
different but equal beliefs are in conflict here. The parties
don't have to AGREE with the beliefs to acknowledge
they should be treated as equal by govt and in the democratic process.

Any trained mediator should be able to see the structure
of this conflict, and understand that the mediation has to
be all inclusive or OF COURSE it will fail.

There are clashing beliefs here, so just like Hindus vs. Muslims,
the govt cannot be abused to legislate one view over the other.
That is in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
and what is so curious to me is that people with these views
are SO BIASED they cannot even see the other views are
EQUALLY valid and protected by law. they only see their
view as right and the other as wrong. So they are both in trouble
unless they open up the process and solution to include BOTH beliefs.

Any mediator knows that you need to start at neutral.
And that's not happening here.

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. the irony is not lost on me that in this debate
"between a Democrat and Republican over ACA,"
the Republican is arguing for ACA mandates as law
and the Democrat is arguing this is not fully Constitutional.

This shows it is based on POLITICAL BELIEF
and it isn't just Republicans but CONSTITUTIONALISTS
arguing that our principle Constitutional beliefs are being overrun
by "majority rule" which is no excuse for establishing
one political belief while penalizing and excluding another.

Very strange.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your blessing is not required, Emily.

FALSE consent of the governed is the basis of law.
I have the right to consent in matters of personal belief
which I have the right to exercise by natural laws as
stated in the First Amendment and protected again by the Fourteenth.

Just because you consent to the law as written
doesn't mean you can impose it on me against my BELIEFS.

My beliefs STILL INCLUDE recognizing and protecting YOUR equal right to follow
and enforce the law, as written, for those like you who CONSENT to it.
So I respect YOUR consent to follow, enforce and fund this law YOURSELF with YOUR fellow followers.

The problem is you don't respect mine.

Sorry but that is against my beliefs that laws
especially anything touching religious or political beliefs
must be by CONSENT of the people or it's govt imposing one belief over another
and that is against the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

I do not exclude your beliefs and right to follow them.
Your mandates are excluding the equal beliefs and exercise of others.
So that is biased, discriminatory and punitive on the basis of CREED.

Sorry you don't get this.
the reason I can forgive you is that it is because
of your own beliefs that you cannot understand mine
and don't recognize them as valid beliefs protected equally by law.

Just like people did not respect Slaves as persons
protected equally by law, but allowed majority rule to decide
laws, and courts to enforce those laws without regarding
the rights of the dissenters as equal persons with equal consent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For you, Emily, because

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have the right to consent in matters of personal belief
which I have the right to exercise by natural laws as
stated in the First Amendment and protected again by the Fourteenth.

In your personal religious life, yes, unless a compelling state interest blocks that right. That you disagree in a democracy is not grounds for saying "no". You can practice civil dissent, and you can reap the reward of such. Opposition to marriage equality and the ACA somehow just does not, to the rational mind, rise to CR level.

But . . . it is your life.

 

[emilynghiem]

For you, Emily, because

Okay so does this count as cyber harassment for my political beliefs? ;-)

JakeStarkey next go bake a bigotry cake that says NO Constitutionalists with a big circle and slash.
Let them eat cake! But not by free choice:
it must be forced by federal govt under penalty of law.
While people who believe in forcing people to buy cake under govt mandates
get exempted instead. And if you want to change the law that other people
passed, the burden is on you, not on the people who deprived you of rights without your consent.

Agreeing to govt is like agreeing to marry a husband, where you agree to be raped
because you agreed to have sex. And it is up to you to prove he raped you
AFTERWARDS because you consented to the marriage. so it is assumed
that the sex was consensual unless and until proven otherwise.
In the meantime, if the rape continues, tough luck until you prove
that you objected.

Welcome to the rape culture of America.

 

[JakeStarkey]

P.S. the irony is not lost on me that in this debate
"between a Democrat and Republican over ACA,"
the Republican is arguing for ACA mandates as law
and the Democrat is arguing this is not fully Constitutional.

This shows it is based on POLITICAL BELIEF
and it isn't just Republicans but CONSTITUTIONALISTS
arguing that our principle Constitutional beliefs are being overrun
by "majority rule" which is no excuse for establishing
one political belief while penalizing and excluding another.

Very strange.

Not at all. I recognize SCOTUS rulings as binding until either changed by amendment or by further rulings. You indeed are a Jacksonian democrat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For you, Emily, because

Okay so does this count as cyber harassment for my political beliefs? ;-)

JakeStarkey next go bake a bigotry cake that says NO Constitutionalists with a big circle and slash.
Let them eat cake! But not by free choice:
it must be forced by federal govt under penalty of law.
While people who believe in forcing people to buy cake under govt mandates
get exempted instead. And if you want to change the law that other people
passed, the burden is on you, not on the people who deprived you of rights without your consent.

Agreeing to govt is like agreeing to marry a husband, where you agree to be raped
because you agreed to have sex. And it is up to you to prove he raped you
AFTERWARDS because you consented to the marriage. so it is assumed
that the sex was consensual unless and until proven otherwise.
In the meantime, if the rape continues, tough luck until you prove
that you objected.

Welcome to the rape culture of America.

Telling you that you are wrong and foolish is cyber harassment and is an act of rape culture? Really?

Your false comparisons of silly derivative analogies is ranking you on the level of PoliticalChic today.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have the right to consent in matters of personal belief
which I have the right to exercise by natural laws as
stated in the First Amendment and protected again by the Fourteenth.

In your personal religious life, yes, unless a compelling state interest blocks that right. That you disagree in a democracy is not grounds for saying "no". You can practice civil dissent, and you can reap the reward of such. Opposition to marriage equality and the ACA somehow just does not, to the rational mind, rise to CR level.

But . . . it is your life.

Let's separate these two issues
A. for the ACA mandates this does affect my life
because it is requiring both me and the people I know to buy
insurance mandated by govt or paying higher taxes.
As you may know by now, my work focus and resources
have been focused on trying to save national history
where similar party politics has allowed destruction at taxpayer expense.
Instead of Democrats cleaning up one mess, they created another.
I can't cover and fix both problems at once.
So this added an additional burden that I didn't consent to.
Yes, this affects me directly

B. for the marriage issue
marriage is already a personal issue of beliefs
If you are talking about civil contracts YES
that can be done through the state but must
still be written NEUTRALLY enough not to impose a bias

I am not against gay marriage
but support it equally as a personal spiritual
practice and belief that the state cannot regulate.

Thus it should either remain private and out
of state hands, or the laws should be written
NEUTRALLY enough neither to ban nor endorse,
neither to prohibit nor establish marriage
laws that conflict with anyone's beliefs.

That is a separate issue that can be resolved
without imposing on one side or the other.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Emily, I don't accept your argumentation: it is irrational and inconsistent, nothing more than "I don't like it."

Tough. Legislated, signed, opined, and passed in the next national election.

That's your beginning point to replace and deny.

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. the irony is not lost on me that in this debate
"between a Democrat and Republican over ACA,"
the Republican is arguing for ACA mandates as law
and the Democrat is arguing this is not fully Constitutional.

This shows it is based on POLITICAL BELIEF
and it isn't just Republicans but CONSTITUTIONALISTS
arguing that our principle Constitutional beliefs are being overrun
by "majority rule" which is no excuse for establishing
one political belief while penalizing and excluding another.

Very strange.

Not at all. I recognize SCOTUS rulings as binding until either changed by amendment or by further rulings. You indeed are a Jacksonian democrat.

1. Why don't you recognize that the original ACA legislation
also required an amendment to give federal gov this authority?
2. until such a corrective amendment is passed
are you willing to pay the COSTS int he meantime of
the conflicts because a proper amendment or
legislation was not AGREED upon to begin with?

For example:

If I enforce a faulty contract that is later held to be fraudulent,
I would be held to pay the costs that this incurred
because I didn't resolve the matter up front to prevent the imposition of these costs.
If I denied and held up the process, costing the person damages
while their rights were violated,
this adds to the costs I am responsible for.

What I find CURIOUS JakeStarkey
is that in this case, the people pushing for ACA
expect the OBJECTORS to pay the costs and bear the burden
when they objected to the bill in the first place.

If you are so convinced your side is right, why not
accept the costs incurred if it turns out the other side's objections
are valid and rights were violated and all these legal burdens
were unfair.

Do you agree that the people who PUSHED the bill and CAUSED
the costs of fixing it should be held to that?

You seem to hold people accountable for costs if they want
ALTERNATIVES to ACA for THEIR beliefs.

Oh wait, that's right, the law PUNISHES that with tax fines.
It does not reward people for pursuing the alternatives for their beliefs
but fines them. So that causes an added burden.

Do you see what is wrong with this picture?

This reminds me of the system that already
puts the burden of proof on the rape victim
to prove it wasn't consensual, but then in addition,
people ATTACK and discredit the victim,
putting the VICTIM on trial and intimidating
the victim to make it harder emotionally
to prove the case. Abuse by bullying on top
of the wrong already committed "until
it is proven" where any objections of
the victim claiming it wasn't consensual
are "dismissed as unfounded" and "just wanting to
pursue charges for other reasons".

Here people are clearly OBJECTING
but similar to rape victims are assumed
to be 'crying wolf.' Who is responsible
if it turns out those objections are valid?

If this was deliberate it would be conspiring
to violate civil rights by oppressing people
abusing politics and govt to do so.

At this point, I hope to even show it is
negligent, not deliberate, because people honestly
don't understand there are valid beliefs
and principles at stake.

That's the minimum. If it is deliberate,
then I would hold the parties responsible
for paying the costs and not the taxpayers!

 

[emilynghiem]

NOTE: It's not just "I don't like"
that's not why atheists are nontheist
and Christians believe in a personified God.
it's not that they "like" it better, that REALLY IS THE TRUTH FOR THEM.

Beliefs people have are INHERENT by nature.
This is very odd to me that you take it so lightly.

Would you say the same to people who believe that rape is wrong that they "just don't like being raped"
Rape is a violation of a person's consent, body, well being, relations,
health, sanctity, everything. It is not just a matter of "I didn't like" that person enough to have sex with.
it's a criminal act of violence.

No, Emily, I don't accept your argumentation: it is irrational and inconsistent, nothing more than "I don't like it."

^ Why are you assuming this? ^

Tough. Legislated, signed, opined, and passed in the next national election.

That's your beginning point to replace and deny.

Since I don't have the resources to fight this legally,
I may have to go on a hunger strike to make my point immediately.

My inalienable rights to liberty and beliefs in Constitutional rules and checks on govt
should not depend on having to put up with these imposed mandates
"while I seek legal and legislative help to remedy the conflicts"

If it is more expedient to go on hunger strike
to expose the denial and discrimination
in legislating "beliefs in health care as a right"
over EQUAL beliefs in "state rights and individual liberties"
unless a Constitutional amendment is agreed to authorize govt in such areas,
(instead of SEPARATING these beliefs by party similar to separate religions
from govt) then I'm fine with going on strike.

If you are this unable to distinguish a political belief
that has equal weight as the political belief in "health care as a right through govt"
then no amount of legal or legislative change is going to change
a BELIEF.

So I can try to go public in other ways,
such as declaring a hunger strike
until this difference in beliefs,
and equal right to separate them is recognized
publicly, and the ACA mandates are understood
to violate the equal protection of BOTH beliefs as equally free choices.

No problem JakeStarkey

I believe my beliefs are right.
I am only asking to SEPARATE them and treat them equally under law.
So that is in keeping with Equal Justice Under Law,
the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

While your continuing to impose YOUR beliefs "by law"
is discounting excluding and discriminating against
beliefs in free choice.

My beliefs would allow both practices to be chosen freely.
You can still have your ACA mandates and exchanges
and just fund them with believers who support that.
and leave the other people who believe in other
choices free to set up, fund and manage alternatives
that respect our beliefs as well. This can be done by party.

And offer the options to any citizens who want to
participate in any of the choices.

That would be more inclusive and equal
of people's political and religious beliefs.
so that would be more Constitutional
than penalizing some choices and beliefs, while legislating
others as required by law.

NOTE: It's not just "I don't like"
that's not why atheists are nontheist
and Christians believe in a personified God.

Beliefs people have are INHERENT by nature.

 

[emilynghiem]

For you, Emily, because

Okay so does this count as cyber harassment for my political beliefs? ;-)

JakeStarkey next go bake a bigotry cake that says NO Constitutionalists with a big circle and slash.
Let them eat cake! But not by free choice:
it must be forced by federal govt under penalty of law.
While people who believe in forcing people to buy cake under govt mandates
get exempted instead. And if you want to change the law that other people
passed, the burden is on you, not on the people who deprived you of rights without your consent.

Agreeing to govt is like agreeing to marry a husband, where you agree to be raped
because you agreed to have sex. And it is up to you to prove he raped you
AFTERWARDS because you consented to the marriage. so it is assumed
that the sex was consensual unless and until proven otherwise.
In the meantime, if the rape continues, tough luck until you prove
that you objected.

Welcome to the rape culture of America.

Telling you that you are wrong and foolish is cyber harassment and is an act of rape culture? Really?

Your false comparisons of silly derivative analogies is ranking you on the level of PoliticalChic today.

Could you not tell I was joking about your butterfly rainbow?
So when I am joking you take it seriously.
And when I am serious you take it lightly that "I just don't like something"

Very strange!
I thought for SURE you would see I was
being satirical and sarcastic there.
About bigotry cakes? Really???

I will consider the hunger strike though.
I don't have means of suing
but preparing terms of a hunger strike
might get some publicity and spread
this idea of addressing political beliefs
as a serious issue being overlooked.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All Emily's nattering means she is not happy with how the modern presidency and the modern state is run in the constitutional American Republic.

The majority of the American people are simply not going to allow the Emilies of America to Balkanize the political system.

See if I am joking on this: you do a hunger strike and on the 14th day I will raise a donut to your silliness.

 

[emilynghiem]

All Emily's nattering means she is not happy with how the modern presidency and the modern state is run in the constitutional American Republic.

The majority of the American people are simply not going to allow the Emilies of America to Balkanize the political system.

See if I am joking on this: you do a hunger strike and on the 14th day I will raise a donut to your silliness.

NOPE I actually support the President in uniting on plans for
education and microlending that is sustainable.
The whole Freedmen's Town district is an educational plan
just waiting on uniting the leaders and may take Obama's executive
orders and support to set this up.

I don't know why you are assuming that other people's beliefs
apply to me, when it is clear I am a Democrat Constitutionalist
so that is going to be different from people opposed by party.

You make a lot of assumptions that aren't true about what I believe.

If you are just JOKING and taunting me, I can understand,
JakeStarkey but if your INABILITY to conceive of and
respect my beliefs as "REAL and not just some political posturing"
then I am TRULY concerned that we need to address this nationally.

It is bad enough when people can't distinguish
Jihadists from Muslims or assume that prochoice means proabortion.
I've been able to address and correct that among conservatives.

But to assume it is not a real belief
about state's and people's rights being the default liberty
and federal govt only having authority where it is expressly consented to
is disastrous!

It is as bad as people not believing Blacks are equal human beings
with ability to express consent, that they should not be voting!

People used to think that women shouldn't vote!

You remind me of this when you "imagine" that my objections
are for some other reasons other than valid beliefs.

Seriously, JakeStarkey
if this issue is THIS SERIOUS and you cannot even open your mind
to see these beliefs as real, that isn't something to be joking about.

Please tell me you are just messing with me
like when you posted that rainbow butterfly
and I made exaggerated cracks back about bigotry cakes.

That was joking about the problem,

but this is a REAL attempt to ADDRESS a REAL problem
if we cannot even see each other's beliefs as real.

I was able to take the BELIEF that "health care is a right"
and EXPLAIN that to conservatives as this IS the
default position that liberal supporters BELIEVE in.

It isn't just for political control, they REALLY BELIEVE
govt is the default, just like some people BELIEVE in GOD
and it isn't by convenience or wanting to impose religion on others.

Why can CONSERVATIVES understand the BELIEF
of liberals as their "default position," but when it
comes to conservatives, I get blank stares and weird responses
like yours? Very strange.

You would think we'd figure out that the mediators and legislators
need to have this understanding that both sets of beliefs
are EQUAL and VALID if we are going to write policies that are fair to both.

No wonder these conflicts fail to resolve and end up in courts.
Very revealing and very disturbing. I hope I am not the only
one here seeing how serious this is that the beliefs are so
deep, people cannot even see the beliefs of the other group as real and valid.

That is seriously disturbing!

 

[emilynghiem]

The majority of the American people are simply not going to allow the Emilies of America to Balkanize the political system.

????
The party system has already been dividing the nation by
* prochoice vs prolife
* rich blaming the poor for social welfare vs. poor blaming the rich for corporate welfare
* relying on govt as the default for health care and education vs. empowering people and states to manage
their own health care and educational programs
etc. etc.

If you think "Emily" created this? Instead of inheriting it from years and years of profederalist and antifederalist
factions since the founding of this country, you must be counting me as "one" with some immortal influence
that existed before I was born in this lifetime. Quit before you give me some Jeffersonian complex bigger than life.

What I am proposing is to USE the GIVEN systems that people ALREADY USE And FUND to represent themselves by party, and organize multiple alternatives for solving problems where people CHOOSE what to fund and participate in VOLUNTARILY.

That's INCLUSION by parties that ALREADY EXIST.

the same way the "several states" have sovereignty but are still part of one union,
why not let these "political beliefs" be managed by parties that have sovereignty over their own policies.

so where the parties AGREE that can be federal law and govt.
And where parties DISAGREE that can be localized under freedom of religion and creed.

So everyone is equal and included.
==================================

See if I am joking on this: you do a hunger strike and on the 14th day I will raise a donut to your silliness.

If I set this up correctly, and hash out the conflicts and terms needed for resolution in advance,
this precludes the need for any hunger strike because the problem will have been resolved.

But declaring that if all the solutions are laid out, and people decide to put political gameplaying
before recognizing valid beliefs and SOLUTIONS that would respect and include them equally,
that is where I would reserve the move to go on a strike to protest that.

So hopefully I don't have to go there, if people can recognize these beliefs are real,
equal and deserving of equal inclusion and protection by law, even if we have to separate by party to do so.

If people aren't serious, then I can use the hunger strike to show this is serious and not just playing around.
I'm not going to go on strike "just because I don't like something."

This is to show these are serious beliefs on the line that if America doesn't recognize
we are wasting resources trying to legislate over people's beliefs they can't help and can't change.
And that is unconstitutional, and doesn't need further amendments to recognize.

It may take adding CLARIFICATION of what is a political belief, and how to manage them
as part of Amendments One and Fourteen. So as long as steps are taken to ADDRESS
these beliefs as serious and real, then that means solving the problem and not going on strike.